<<

Jaina Studies

NEWSLETTER OF THE CENTRE OF JAINA STUDIES

March 2008 Issue 3 CoJS Newsletter • 2008 • Issue 3

Centre for Jaina Studies' Members ______SOAS MEMBERS EXTERNAL MEMBERS Honorary President Professor J Clifford Wright (University of Edinburgh) Vedic, Classical , , and Senior Lecturer in Sanskrit and literature; comparative philology Dr William Johnson (University of Cardiff) Chair/Director of the Centre ; Indian ; Sanskrit Indian Dr Peter Flügel Epic; Classical Indian ; Sanskrit drama. Jainism; Religion and in South Asia; Anthropology of religion; Religion and ; South Asian diaspora. ASSOCIATE MEMBERS Professor Lawrence A. Babb John Guy Dr Daud Ali (Amherst College) (Metropolitan Mueum of Art) of medieval South ; Chola courtly in early medieval India Professor Professor Phyllis Granoff (Sorbonne Nouvelle) () Professor Ian Brown The modern economic and political Dr Piotr Balcerowicz Dr Julia Hegewald history of South East Asia; the economic (University of Warsaw) (University of Heidelberg) impact of the inter-war depression in South East Asia Nick Barnard Professor Rishabh Chandra Jain (Victoria and Albert Museum) (Muzaffarpur University) Dr Whitney Cox and literary theory, Professor Ranjan Banerjee Professor Padmanabh S. Jaini , intellectual (University of ) (UC Berkeley) and cultural history of , History of Saivism Dr Rohit Barot Dr Whitney M. Kelting (University of Bristol) (Northeastern University Boston) Professor Rachel Dwyer Indian film; Indian popular culture; Professor Bhansidar Bhatt Dr Kornelius Krümpelmann and literature; Gujarati (University of Münster) (University of Münster) ; Gujarati diaspora; compara- tive . Professor Willem Bollée Dr James Laidlaw (University of Heidelberg) (University of Cambridge) Dr Sean Gaffney Buddhist Studies; Pre-classical and Professor Frank van den Bossche Professor Adelheid Mette classical Tibetan; Assistant editor: (University of Ghent) (University of ) Tibetan-English Dictionary Project. Professor Johannes Bronkhorst Professor Hampa P. Nagarajaiah Professor Werner Menski (University of Lausanne) (University of ) Classical and modern ; Muslim Law; of South Asia; ; Professor Christopher Key Chapple Michael O'Keefe ; South Asians in the UK; (Loyola University) () ; Ethnic minorities Professor Christine Chojnacki Dr Jean-Pierre Osier Dr Francesca Orsini (University of Lyon) () Literature; North Indian literacy ; Hindi; Urdu Dr Eva DeClerq Professor Olle Qvarnström (University of Gent) (University of Lund) Dr Theodore Proferes Religion and of Ancient India; Dr Robert J. Del Bontà Dr Josephine Reynell (San Francisco) (Oxford University)

Dr Lucy Rosenstein Professor M.A. Dhaky Professor Vilas Sangave Medieval Hindi (Braj) language and lit- (American Institute of Indian Studies, (University of ) erature; Hindi language and comparative Gurgaon) ; the modern Hindi ; Dr Maria Schetelich modern Hindi poetry Dr Christoph Emmrich (University of Leipzig) (University of Toronto) Dr Renate Söhnen-Thieme Dr Jayandra Soni Sanskrit language and literature; classical Janet Foster (University of Marburg) ; folklore and music of (San Francisco) Baltistan Dr Anne Vallely Dr Lynn Foulston (University of Ottawa) (University of Wales) Dr Kristi L. Dr Sin Fujinaga ( Berkeley) (Miyakonojo Kosen, Japan) Professor Robert Zydenbos Professor Jonardon Ganeri (University of Munich) (University of )

 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3 Jaina Studies NEWSLETTER OF THE CENTRE OF JAINA STUDIES Contents:

4 Letter from the Chair Conferences and News 5 Jaina Art & Architecture: Programme 6 Jaina Art & Architecture: Abstracts 10 Workshop 2009: Jain Scriptures and Philosophy 12 Jaina Studies at SOAS: A History 14 Jainism and Modernity: Conference Report 16 ������������������������������������������������������������Jaina Studies at the American Academy of Religion Conference Research 18 ������� ����� ���� ����� ������ ������� 24 Lustrating the First King: Images of Abhiṣeka 28 Th� �Mūrtipūjak� �Śvetāmbar� �Community ��� �North � 30 Glimpses from Vasunandin’s Manual Uvāsayajjhayaṇa 34 Transmissio� �of �����giou� ���d �Mor�� �Co������ ��� ����� �Narrativ� �Literature 36 ESRC �Funded ������rch �Proj�� �o� ��h� ��o�� ���d �Pr���� of� �������m Amo� ng You� ng ������ ��� ��h� �UK ���d �US 37 ����� �Collectio� ��� ��h� V� ictor�� ���d A� lber� �Museum: A� Vo� lunteer’� �Perspective 38 Śikarbandh� ������ �Derāsar T� em��� ��� �Potter� � �Officially �Opened Publications 40 ����� �Manuscripts: V� ���� ��o ��h� �British �Library 42 The Epitome of Queen Lilāvati by Jinaratna 44 Jainology ���d �Mo����� �Banarsidas 45 Jaina Studies Series 46 International Journal of Jaina Studies 47 International Journal of Jaina Studies (Online) 47 Digital Resources in Jaina Studies at SOAS On the Cover: Prakrit Studies 47 Prakr�� ��ñānabhāratī �Internatio��� Aw� ard� �2005-2006 � 48 � �New �Prakr�� Cour� �� ��� ��OAS 49 Prakrit Summer School 2007 in Finland Student Forum 50 Jaina Studies Student Forum in San Diego

Scholarships R ob e r � �� . D Bo nt à 51 Victoria & Albert Museum Fund 52 � ����� ����r�� ��holarsh�� �Fieldwork ����ort: �Experiencing �������m ���V � aranasi 54 � �Undergradu��� �Essay �Priz� ��� ����� ���udies 54 � �Dissertatio� �Priz� ��� ����� ���udies A �d����� �of ���rasvatī �from �� ������g ��� ��h� � Vim��� V� asahī or� Ād� ināth� ���mple, Mou� �� � Jaina Studies at the Ābū, 1032� CE� ���d �����r. �O � �� of� ��h� m� any � or���� ������g� ��� ��h� ���mple. � �Many �de- 54 PhD/MPhil in Jainism pict the vidyādevīs, � � grou� � of � ��x���� � 55 � �Cour��� ��� ����� ���ud��� ��� h�� � �University �of �Londo� � goddesses. � � ��rasvatī � �� �o� � ��r� � of � �h�� � group, � bu� � �� �h� � godd��� � of � ���rning � �� � found represented throughout the history of ������ ��rt.

 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

Letter from the Chair

Dear �Friends,

Th�� �year �w� ����br��� ��h� �10th Jaina Studies Workshop �� ��OA� �with �� �onfer��� �o� �Jaina Art & Architecture. �Th� � ev��� ��� �ollaboratively �funded �by ��OAS, ��h� �University �of �Lund, ��h� �Victor�� ���d �Alber� �Museum ��� �London, ���d �by � generou� �ontributio�� �from ���dividu�� �member� �of ��h� ������ �ommunity �who ���� �wish ��o �rem��� ���onymous. �I� ��� �� � pleasur� ��o ��o�� ��h�� ��h� ����u�� �Centr� �of ������ ���ud��� �worksho�� �hav� �grow� ��� ��opularity ���d �hav� �becom� �� �fixtur� � for ���yo�� �����rested ��� h�� � ������� �research �o� ��h� ����� ��raditions. A� nother ��otab�� �r���� �developm��� ��� ��he, ������ �mod- est, �revitalizatio� �of �Prakr�� ���ud��� ��� �Europe. �A� ��OAS, ��h� ��outh �A��� �Departm��� �h�� �revived ���� �Prakr�� ����hing � programm� ��hrough ��h� ���������v� �of �Dr ������� ��öhnen-Thiem� ���d �Prof ��. �Clifford �Wright, ���d ����� ��ummer ��h� �fir�� � internatio��� Pr� akr�� ��ummer ��hool, org� anized by� Dr� � Ev� � D� � C� lercq, A� ��� Aur� ���� E� sposito ���d P� etter� Ko� skikallio of� � th� �Univer������ �of �Ghent, �Würzburg ���d �Helsinki, �w�� �held ��� ���������m� ��� �Finland. �Dr �Esposito �of ��h� �University �of � Würzburg ��� �urrently �heading �� ��roj�� �o� �The Transmission of Religious and Moral Contents in Jaina Narrative Lit- erature, ��� �Prakrit, �funded �by ��h� �Germ�� ������rch �Founda­to� �(DFG). �To ���rength�� ��h� �����r��� ��� �Prakr�� ���udies, ��h� � Natio��� I� nstitu�� of� Pr� akr�� ���ud��� ���d ������rch ���Śr � avaṇabeḷagoḷ� (K� arnataka, I� ndia) off� er� ����ually ��h� ��ñānabhāratī � Internatio��� Aw� ards. �Professor �Emeritu� �Willem �Bollé� �of ��h� �University �of �Heidelberg ���d �Professor �Emeritu� �Klau� � Bruh� �of ��h� �Fr�� �University �of �Ber��� �wer� ��h� �winner� �of ��h� ��ward� �for ��h� �year� �2005 ���d �2006 �respectively. �Both � ar� ��m����� �����war�� of� Pr� akr�� ���udies, m� aintaining ���d ������ring ��h�� ��m��� bu� � ���gnifi��� fi� eld of� ���udy dur� ing d� ifficu�� � times. ��ociolog��� �research �o� �ontemporary ����� �ommu������ �w��� �b� �boosted ��hrough �Dr �Bind� ��hah’� ��uccessfu� �bid � for �ESRC �funding �for �� �research ��roj�� �o� ��h� �Role and Practice of Jainism among Young Jains in the UK and US; and through ��h� ���������v�� of� �Dr A� ��� V� allely �of ��h� �University �of �Ottawa, �who ��� ��utum� �of �2007 �organised �� �well-received � ����� o� � ����� ���ud��� ��� ��h� A� nnu�� Co� nfer��� of� ��h� Am� er��� A� cademy of� �����gio� (AA� R) ���d �� ������ ���ud��� ���ud��� � forum ��� ���� �Diego. Amo� ng�� �� ��umber �of ��otab�� ���w ��ublicatio�� ��r� ��h� �fir�� ��r��� �versio� �of �Vol. �1-3 �of ��h� �o����� � International Journal of Jaina Studies �(IJJS), ��ublished �by �Hind� �Granth �Karyalay �for ��h� �Centr� �of ������ ���udies, ���d � th� ��ranslatio�� �of ������ �����kr�� ���x�� ��ublished �by ��h� �Clay �����kr�� �Library. ���gular �upd���� �o� �r���� ��ublicatio�� ��� � ����� ���ud��� ��r� ��ublished �o� ��h� �Co�� W� ebsite. Th� �� ����u� �of ��h� ������ ���ud��� �Newsletter ��r������ �� ��umber �of �repor�� � o� ���� �of ��h��� � ����vities, ���d �further ���formatio� �o� ������ �research, ��ublishing ���d �urator��� ��ursu��� �from ���� �over ��h� � world. � �I ��m ��ur� �you �w��� ���joy ���. � �

Peter �Flügel

Ingrid Schoon

 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

Jaina Art & Architecture 10th Jaina Studies Workshop at SOAS

The Annual Jain Lecture Thursday, 6th March 2008 18.00-19.30 Brunei Gallery Lecture Theatre 19.30 Reception Brunei Gallery Suite

New Approach to the Study of Jaina Art and Architecture Prof Maruti Nandan P. Tiwari ()

Workshop , 7th March 2008 9.00, Brunei Gallery Lecture Theatre

9.05 Christine Chojnacki (Université Lyon) 15.05 R. Uma Maheshwari Eulogy and in Jaina Medieval Literature Sites of Identity: and Community in Tamil Jaina Stories 9.35 Robert J. del Bontà (San Francisco) From Narrative to Icon: The Bāhubali Image 15.35 John Henry Rice (University of Pennsylvania) at Śravaṇabeḷgoḷa Orienting Jaina Polity: Building in Vijayanagara-Period Kanara 10.05 Avadhanula V.K. Babu (Osmania University) Jaina Stūpa at Vaddamanu, Andrah Pradesh 16.05 Tea and Coffee

10.35 Nalini Balbir (University of Paris) 16.35 Olle Qvarnström (Lund University) The Vijñaptipatras: Texts and Representations Niels Hammer (Orås) The Jain Cave Paintings at Ellora 11.05 Tea and Coffee 17.05 Lisa Nadine Owen (University of North Texas) 11.35 Peter Flügel (SOAS) Demarcating Sacred Space: Jain Sacred Places: Sammeta Śikhara The Jina Images at Kalugumalai

12.05 Gerd Mevissen (Freie Universität) 17.35 Janice Leoshko (University of Texas) North (Ancient Varendra): ��Def���������������������ning Jain Elements at An Innovative Sub-Centre Udayagiri-Khaṇḍagiri, Orissa of Jaina Sculptural Art 18.05 Prakash (University of London) 12.35 Max Deeg (Cardiff University) Art and Ritual in the Diaspora: Indian Influence on Reconsidered: The Derāsar at Potters Bar The Case of Jainism 18.35 Final Remarks 13.05 Lunch: Brunei Gallery Suite Organisers: 14.05 Alvappillai Veluppillai (Arizona State University) Peter Flügel (SOAS), Olle Qvarnström (Lund University) and South Indian Jainism: The Role of Nicholas Barnard (V&A) Sponsored by the European Religious Polemics in Tamil Th� �onfer��� ��� �o-organised ���d N�o-etworkspons or�fore d������ by� ��h ���� udC� entiesr:� of� ����- 14.35 Christoph Emmrich (University of Toronto) �� ���ud��� ��� OA�� S, ��h� C� entr� for� Th� eology ���d �����giou� ���ud��� ��� � �������The Man �W����������������ho Fell from the �G�������opuram: th� �University �of �Lund �(http://www.sasnet.lu.se/indrellund.html) ���d � Picking up Pieces in Kanchi th� V� ictor�� ���d A� lber� �Museum ��� �Londo� �(http://www.vam.ac.uk).

 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

ABSTRACTS Jaina Stūpa at Vaddamanu, : Digambar� ���d �Śvetāmbar� ��ou��� �of �h�� ���f� ���d �h�� �������m��� �of � A Study enlightenment to try to understand the real meaning of this �� ��� �h�� ��volved �over ���me. �Underscoring ��h��� �����r��� �differences, �

Bāhub��� ���k�� o� � ��� ��mpor���� ��h�� f� ar ou� tweigh� �� ���m��� ��dentifica- Avadhanula Vijay� �Kumār �Babu, �Osm���� �University, �Hyderabad � � tio� �of ��h� ��mage.

Vaddamanu, �mentioned ��� �Wudlamaanu ��� ��h� �1887 �repor� �of ��ober� � Eulogy and Ritual in Jaina Medieval Literature Sewell, ���d ��� �Vadhamaanu, ��� ��h� ��opo ��h��� �of �1926, ��� �� ��m��� �vil- lag� ��ying o� � 16’’� 32’� L� atitud� o� � Nor� th ���d 80”� 30’� Lo� ngitud� o� � E� ast, � Chr������ �Chojnacki, �University �of �Lyon situated ��� �� �d������ �of �10 �kms, �from Am� aravati, ��h� �famou� �Buddh��� � centr� ���Gu � ntur, A� ndhr� Pr� adesh. Ex� cavated �����quar��� r� emains, ��uch � A� ���H � indu ���d Buddh� ��� �����rature, ��r���� (� , stuti) has an impor- �� �Midd�� �Paleolith� ���d �Neolith� �����mblages; �Microlith� �blades; � ���� ����� ��� ������ �����rature, ���������y ��� �mediev�� ���mes. A� �mer� ��ook � Capstones and Orthostats from Megalithic burials; lead and other coins �� �manuscr��� �����ogu�� ��� ���ough ��o ��rov� ��h� �fact. �Th� �gener� ���rm � belonging � �o � ����vah��� � ��d � Ikshwaku � ��mes; � ��d � �h� � ��ructur�� � re- pr���� ��� �������d ��o �very �differ��� ���xts. �No� �only ��r� ��h� ���m�� ���d ��h� � mains of a Jaina stūpa �bu��� �during �.300 �BC ���., ��ush �back ��h� �on- subj��� �of ��h� ��ulogy �manifold �bu� ��h� �����rary �form� ��r� ����o �varying � tinuou� ���d �uninterrupted �habitatio� ��� �Vaddamanu, �from �Paleolith� � widely. �Furthermore, ��h� �functio�� �of ��r���� ��r� ��umerou� ��� �w��� ���d � tim�� �u���� ��oday. � mor� ��h�� �o�� ��o� ����y ��o �determine. �I� ��h� ��r����� ����k, �I �w��� ��ry ��o � Although numerically Jaina stūpas ��r� ���mited, �o� ��h� �ground� �of � explor� ��� ��y��� of� ��r���� ���d ��o ����, wh� ether ��� ��� ��ossib�� ��o d� efi�� � aesthetics, h� istoricity ���d r� eligiou� v� alues, ��hey ��r� wor� th ���udying. Th� � � mor� ��recisely ��om� �of ��h� �gener� ���rm� �used ��� ��h� ������ �mediev�� � structures; ��h� ����ribed ��otsherds, �divulging ��h� ���m�� �of ��h� �donors, � literature for praising sacred entities and pilgrimage places by studying r�������� � of � �h� � donatio�� � ��d � �h� � kings; � o��� � with � ��gends; � ����� � their �ontents, �form� ���d �functions and ����ribed ��ulpted �fragments, �with �flor�� �designs, �miniatur� �stūpas and structural motifs; the auspicious symbols; human and mythical art form� �- ��� �found ���V � addamanu, ��� �ompariso� �with ���milar ��xecutio�� � Middle-Eastern Notions of Jainism – Jain Influence found ��� ������ ������� Kh��� � andagiri, M� athur� ���d Ud� ayagiri, dur� ing ��h� � on Mani contemporary ���riod. The paper makes an attempt to study the architectural features Max �Deeg, �Cardiff �University and �other �findings; ��ho�� ������� ���d �onfirm ��h� �history ���d �����quity � of �Vaddamanu ���d ���� ffi�� liatio� ��o �������m, ��� �� �ontemporary ���ving � Wh�� � Antiqu� � or � ����-Antiqu� � or � Middle-� � �uthor� � wr��� � o� � religiou� ����r� ��� �Andhr� ���d ��h� �ontributio� �of �Andhr� ��o �������m. � Ind��� �religion, ���������y �o� ��h� ��o-called �śramaṇa-movements, ��� ��� � Th� ���udy �w��� �b� ��upported �by �drawings, ��hotos, ������, �������, ���bular � usually ����umed ��h�� ��hey �describ� ���d �refer ��o �. �Th�� �����r � form� ���d ���xtu�� ������ments. � w��� ��xplor� ��wo �����of � ��ossib�� ����� ��r����� ��� ��on-Ind��� �ontexts, � o�� � found � �� �h� � descriptio� � of � Ind��� � religiou� � of � �h� � �yr�� � writer � Bard������ of� Ed� ���� (154� –� 222)� ���d ���other ��� ��h� ����hing� of� M� ��� � The Vijñaptipatras: Texts and Representations (216 –� 276)� ���fou � nd ��� ��h� Ko� ��� ���x� K� ephalaia. I� � w� ��� b� � ��rgued ��h�� � th� �descriptio�� �giv�� ���d ��h� �religiou� ���rm� �/ �o����� ��resented ���d � N����� �Balbir, �University �of �Par�� �III, ��orbo��� �Nouv���� � discussed �– �usually ���k�� ��� �Buddh��� �– �mak� �much �mor� ������ ��f ��hey � ar� �����rpreted ��� �representing �or �b� �derived �from �������m. Th� ���vitatio� ��ro��� �(vijñaptipatra) sent by Jain lay communities to Śvetāmbar� m� end����� ���ord � er ��o r� equ��� ��hem ��o �����d ��r � ainy �����o� � The Man who fell from the : Picking up �� ��heir ���rticular ��ocality ��r� ��� �orig���� �manifestatio� �of ����� �ulture. � Pieces in Kanchi They �omb��� ����or��� ��r� �(stereotyped �motiv�� ���d �����fi ��hemes) � with �����rary ��hievem���� �(kāvya ���y�� ��� �����krit, �vernacular ��oems, � citrakāvya ���d �riddles) ��� �� ��killfu� �way �which ����d� ��o �� �umulativ� � Christoph �Emmrich, �University �of Toro� nto discour�� of� ��r���� bo� th of� m� �� (� th� �����mo � nk ��� �� ����her) ���d ������. � Th��� � ro� ��� � repr����� � both � � regio��� � ��d � ����r��� � �radition. �They � Though today of the fabled 83 of Jina Kanchi only one is left predominantly �om� from� Guj� ar�� ���d ���jasthan, ���d h� av� b� ��� ���u � �� � standing, � �� � �� �urprising � �o � ���r� � �h�� � ����gedly �h � er� � �r� � ����� �bou� � especially �with�� ��h� �Kharataragacch� �from ��bou� ��h� �15th-16th ���- 300 ��racticing ���ypeo��� �with ������g�� �going �back ��o ��h� ���m�� �of ��h� � tury ��o ��h� ���rly �20th ����ury. �Based �o� �� �few ��xamples, �our ���vestiga- former ����r� �of �Tam�� ������ �worsh�� ���d ����rning. �How �do ��h� ������� � tio� �(which �w��� ���k� ����o ��ou�� ���rlier ���ud��� �o� ��h� ��opic) �w��� �b� � of �Kanch� ����k ��bou� ��heir �ow� �gloriou� ����� �with ���� ���rrativ� �being � �� �����m�� ��o h� ighligh� ��h� m� ��� f� eatur�� of� ��h� �����fi rh� etor� ���work � � dyed � by � �h� � blood � of � �h� � Śaiv� � histor��� � ���ming � �heir � ��rsecution? � in the vijñaptipatras. How �do ��hey ���rik� ��h� �b����� �betw��� �representatio� ���d �discrete- ness, � betw��� � �rying �o � � ��v� � �� � �ommunity � wh��� � being �o  ncerned � abou� ��h� �onsequ���� �of �being ���rceived? �Wh�� �ontemporary ���r- From Narrative to Icon: the Bāhubali Image at so��� ���d ���rform���� �hav� �b��� ��rompted �by ��h� ���x������ �of �be- Śravaṇabeḷgoḷa ing ��oo �brāhmaṇical, �or ��o� T� am�� ���ough? A� nd, �betw��� ���� h�� is, �wh�� � happened ��o ������ ��holarsh�� ��� �Kanchi, �deprived �of ���� �������utions: � Rober� ��. �D�� �Bontà, ���� �Francisco wiped �ou� ���d �forgotten? A� nswer� ��o ��h�� �may �b� �found ��� ��h� �ongoing � lo�� �discussio�� ���d �docum���� ��urrounding ������, �ro��� ���d ��g���� � One of the most popular images created by the Digambara Jainas is of wor� sh�� ���d by� ��h� w� ay� ���xtu�� ��raditio�� h� er� ��r� b� eing ��ransmitted � th�� �of �Bāhubali, ��h� ��o� �of ��h� �fir�� �tīrthaṅkara, �Ṛṣabha. �I� ��urn, ��h� � �� ��h� ��b���� �of �� �mo����� �ommunity. mo�� �famou� ��uch ��mag� ��� ��h� �olo���� �monolith ��� �Śravaṇabeḷgoḷa. �I � w��� ��o ���vestig��� ��h� �fu�� ���gnifi��� �of ��h�� ��mage. ��om� �work� �of � Jain Sacred Places: Sammeta Śikhara Ind��� ��r� ����� ���rrativ�� ���d o� ther� ��r� �����������y ��o�� ��mages, wh� ich � also �o����� r� efer���� ��o ���rrative. �A � � ���m�� ��h��� r� efer���� ��r� ��her� � Peter �Flügel, ��OAS merely ��o ��dentify ��h� ��mage, �bu� ��� ��om� ����� ��h� ����� �betw��� ���rra- tiv� ���d ��o� ��� �blurred ���d ��h� ��mag� ���rv�� �� �doub�� ��urpose. � Samm��� Ś� ikhar� ��� ��h� mo� �� ��mpor���� ������ ����grimag� �����. Tw� enty of� � Studying �how ��h�� ��mag� �differ� �from ���rlier �o��� �from ��uch ������ � th� ��wenty-four tīrthaṅkaras, mo� �� ��rominently Pārśv� a, ��r� ����d ��o h� av� � �� � Bādāmī, � Ellor� � underscor�� � �om� � key � differ���� � �� � �onography � attained nirvāṇa �o� ��h� ����k� �of �Pārasnāth �H��� ��� ��harkhand, �which ��� � and � meaning. � Th��� � distinctio�� � �r� � ���d � �o � rr�� ative. � I� � �� � b� � �r- som� ����g� �w�� �declared ��o b� � �� ���red �mountain; ��hough ��h� h� istor��� � gued � �h�� � rather �h � �� � merely � r�� ing � dow� �h � � � ��rrativ� � ���m���� � �� � Mou�� ���mmed� �m � ay b� � ��ocated �����where, for� �������� ��� ��h� Ku� luvā- Śravaṇabeḷgoḷ� ���d ���ressing ��h� ��o�� �quality �of ��h� ��mage, �� �much � pahāḍ ����r �Gayā. �Th� ��re-history �of ��h� ����grimag� ����� ��� �uncertain. � deeper �hang� �h�� �occurred. � ���� �ontro� �of ��h� �mou����� ������d ����o ��h� �hand� �of ��h� �Śvetāmbar� � Combined � with �h � � � visu�� �v � idence, � I � w��� � �o � onsider � variou� � ����� �of �Murshidabad ��� ��h� �18th ����ury, ������ �of �worsh�� �wer� �on-

 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

tinuously �onstructed ���d r� enovated o� � ��o� of� ��h� h� ill, ���d ��h� v� illag� of� � being � �� � � ���red � ���� � ��dowed � by � dir�� � �hy���� � ���ociatio� � with � Madhub�� ��� ��h� bo� ttom of� ��h� h� ��� w� �� d� eveloped ����o ��m � ajor ����grim- th� ������ �with ��h� �du�� ��o������� �of �reinvigorating ��h� ���dividu�� ����� � ag� ��own, ��� �haracter ���milar ��o P� ������� ���Guj � arat. Th� � �����r r� eview� � and ���rving ��� �� �unifying �focu� �for ��h� ����� �ommunity ��� �� �whole, ��� � th� �history ���d �religiou� ���gnifi��� �of ��h� �����, ���d ��h� �ongoing �our� � � ����� �of �oming ��ogether �(samêta). �Th�� �which �originally �w�� ����gi- ���� �oncerning ����ow � nersh�� ���d m� anagement, w� aging for� mor� � ��h�� � b�� ���d ��xperience-near, ��h� �bod��� �of ��h� ������, ��� ��ow ������gib�� ���d � o�� �hundred �year� �betw��� �Digambar�� ���d �Śvetāmbaras, ��o�� �Hin- experience-far, �wh��� ��h�� �which ��� x�� perience-far, ��h� �qu������� �of ��heir � dus, �Naxalites, ���d ��h� ������� �of � ���d ��harkhand. ���garding ��h� � inner ��oul, ������r� ��o �b� ��xperience-near, �both ��� ��h� ���rceptio� �of ��h� � contested concept of sacred place or tīrtha ��� ��h� ������ ��radition, ��h� � id��� ����grim ���d ��� ��h� ��bstr�� �ommemorativ� �representatio� �of ��h� � paper ��rgu�� �for ��� �����y���� �distinctio� �betw��� �‘����� �of ��mpower- liberated arhats, ��h� ����� ��mage, ��� �home. � ment’ � �h�� � �r� � ���rinsically � onnected � with � �xemplary � religiou� � ���, � A� ��h� ����grim ��dvances, ���� ���rceived �onnectio� �with ��h� �����’� � such as the kalyāṇaka-kṣetras of ��h� ������, ���d �‘����� �of �ommemora- r���� �of �u�� ��� �onceived ��� �� �form �of ��mpowerment. �How ��� ��h�� ��os- tion’ ��h�� ��r� �onstructed ��� rb�� itrarily �ho��� ������. �Th� �differentia- sible? �Th� ��opular ����� �view ��� ��h�� ������ ��ower� ��� �b� ��ransmit- tio� of� ������of � ��mpowerm��� ���d ������of � �ommemoratio� ��� ��upported � ted ��hrough �dir�� ��hy���� �ontact, �bu� ��o� ��hrough ��ymbo���� ���� �of � by ��h� ��x������ of� ��wo ��y��� of� ��hr���� ���d ���mples, hou� sing ��wo ��y��� � commemoration. Th� �� b� elief �ontrad��� �����k � arm� ��heory, bu� � ��rguably � of representation of the Jinas: pādukās and pratimās. �A ��hird ��y�� �of � mak�� ������ ���fu � nctionalist, ��ocio-psycholog��� ���rms. From� ��h� ��o��� � representatio� ��� ��vid��� ��� ����� �����ratur� �only: ��h� �bo�� �r���� �of ��h� � of �view �of ��h� �doctr��� �of �, ��h� ��our� �of ��mpowerm��� �offered � Jinas, jiṇa-sakahā, ��ossessio� ���d �veneratio� �of �which, ��ording ��o � by Mount Sammeta is not located in the artistic representations of relics Rāyapaseṇaijj� �vv. �186f., �gener���� ��o� �only �welfar� �(hiya), �h�������� � of u� �� o� � ��o� ��h� h� ill, ��or gr� anted by� ��h� mou� ����� god� Bh� ūmiy� jī� who� � (suha), ���d �forgiv����� �(khamā), �bu� ��v�� ����vatio� �(nisseyasa). �Ac- �� �worshipped �befor� ��h� ������, �bu� ��redicated �o� ���� �of ������ ����f- cording ��o V� iyāh��������� �10.5.� �(502b), ��� ��� �onduciv� ��o ��h� ��quisi- exertio� � which � �hemselv�� � �r� �hy � ���� � form� � of � ���f-empowerment, � tio� �of �mag��� ��ower� �(iḍḍhi). � no� � mer� � ��� � of � veneratio� � of � �������m. �Yet, � �� �h�� � ����r � �����d� � A ���ond ��ropositio� �of ��h� �����r ��� ��h�� ��h� �Buddh��� �distinction, � to ��how, ��� ��� �only ��h� �belief ��� ��h� �former ��r����� �of ��h� ������ �which � �� ��h� K� alingabodh� ��ātaka, b� etw��� r� ���� (� shrines) of� �ommemoratio� � furnish�� ��h� ������ratio� �for ��uch ��xtraordinary ��r����� �of �voluntary � (uddesika-cetiya), r� ���� of� u� �� (� paribhoga-cetiya), ���d �orpor��� r� ���� � self-mortification. (sarīrika-cetiya) ��� �usefu� �for �understanding ����� ��rchitecture, ��r� ���d � ritual practice; regardless of the fact that Jaina scriptures do not offer Sites of Identity: Village and Community such �� � ������fication; �mo�� ���kely �becau�� ��h� �r���� �of ��h� ������ �hav� � in Tamil Jaina Stories no� �b��� ��reserved, ���d �do ��o� ����y �� �major �ro�� ��� ����� �ritu�� �ulture, � d������ � �heir � �rom����� � �� � ���� � mythology. � Curr��� � our� � ���� �d- dr��� ��h� ��ho����� (� and ��onomic) qu� estio� wh� ether ���mm��� Ś� ikhar� � R. �Um� M� aheshwari, ��NU, �New �Delhi �� �� �who�� ��� ���red �or �only �����fi ���r�� �of ���. �I� �Buddh��� ���rms, ��h� � sacredness of the mountain or parts is predicated on its as a relic Th� �Tam�� ������� ��oday ��r� ����gorised ��� �� �‘minority’ �ommunity ��� � of u� �� r� ather ��h�� ��r � ��� of� �ommemoration. Th� � jina-caritras� assure us Tamilnadu �- ��heir ��opulatio� �being ��round �30, �000. �I� �h�� �b��� �� ��ong � th�� ��h� ��hy���� r� em���� of� ��h� ������, �orpor��� r� elics, ��r� b� eyond r� each � way � for � � �ommunity � which � h�� � � recorded � �x������ � �� �Tamiḻakam � for � hum�� � beings. � Bhavadevasūri’� � 12th � ���ury � Pārśvanāthacaritra ���� �2nd ���d �3rd ����ury �BC �(going �by ��h� ���r����� �records, ��h� �Tam�� � vv. �363-93, �for ��������, ������ �u� �of ��h� ���gendary �washing �of ��h� �r���� � Brāhm� ����riptions) ���d �h�� �ontributed ��xtensively ��o ��h� �develop- of �Pārśva, ���rformed �by ��h� �god� ��� ��h� �remo�� �Kṣīrod� �milk �ocean, � m��� � ��d � ��richm��� � of �Tam�� � ���guag� � ��d � ����rature, � with � ompo- befor� ��heir �fi��� ����ombm��� ��� �heavenly stūpas� . � sitio�� ��uch ��� �Cilappatikāram, �Cīvakacintāmaṇi, �Nālaṭiyār, �Nīlakeci, � I� � ���� � mythology � ��d �o  smography, � ��mples-imag�� � (r���� � of � Naṉṉūl, T� irukkuṟaḷ ���d V� alayāpati. � commemoration), ���red mou� ntains-footpr���� (r� ���� of� u� se) ���d h� eav- Th� T� am�� ������ �������m���� �of ��oday ��r� �found �mostly ��� ��h� �North � enly stūpas-bo�� �r���� �(corpor��� �relics) ��r� ��resented ��� ��uccessiv� � and ��outh �Arcot, �Chengleput, ���d �Tanjavur �districts. �Th� �majority �of � stag�� � o� � � �ontinuum � of � �rogressiv� � reflectiv� � �bstractio� � from � �h� � Tamil Jainas are agriculturists and the community has been agrarian pr������ ����gib�� �obj��� �of ��dentification, ��h� �r��� �bod��� �of ��h� ������, � throughout, � �� �g����� �h � � � gener�� � ��rceptio� � of � ������ � being � only � � predicated o� � ��h� m� aster ���rrativ� of� ��h� �����w��� r� emov�� of� ��h� ��hysi- mer������ �ommunity. � �� ��ubstr��� �of �������y. �Th� �rem���� �of ��h� ������, ���rceived ��our�� � Th� �Tam�� ������� ��r� ��o� ��h� �����r �migr��� �������r �������, ��h� �Mar- of �both ��urity ���d ��upernatur�� ��ower, �wer� ��rried �beyond ��h� �visib�� � war� �Śvetāmbar� ������ �mer������ �ommunity �(addressed �by ��h� �Tam�� � world ����o ��h� ��������b�� �realm �of �heavenly �vimānas to make them ������ ��� �‘seṭh’) �������d ��oday ��� ��r���� ��ock��� �of �Ch����� �or �other � unusab�� � for � hum�� � beings. � Th� � r�� ceived � ���k � betw��� � �urity � ��d � tow�� ���T � amilnadu �who �may �����k T� amil. Th� � T� am�� ������� ���� �follow � power ��� ���vered. O� nly ��ypified r� epresentatio�� of� ��h� body� ���d ���rso�� � th� �Digambar� ������ ��radition. �Locally ��hey ��r� r� eferred ��o ��� �‘naiṉār’. � � of ��h� ������ ���d ���ylized ��r��� �of ��heir ��xemplary ���v�� �rem��� ��� ��m- Th� �Tam�� ������ �ommunity ��� �� �repository �of ���ories. �And ���or��� � age-worshipping ����� �ritu�� �ulture. �By ����minating ��h� �opportunity �of � are one of the means they employ to construct their community identity venerating ��h� �orpor��� �r���� �of ��h� ������, ����� ��riptur�� ��rivileged � vis-à-vis ��h� �other. �Th��� ��r� ���or��� �of �� �ommunity ���rsecuted �(ther� � traditio� �building ��hrough ��h� �routinisatio� �of �harism� �over ��raditio� � �� ��m��� �histor��� ��vid��� ��o ��h�� ��ffect) ��� �history. Th� er� ��� �� ����d ��o � building ��hrough �objectified �harisma, �which �w�� �ho��� �by ��h� �Bud- lo��� ��h� ���gnifi��� –� h� istor��� ���d ��o��� –� of� ��om� of� ��h��� ���ories, � dhist Mahāparinibbāṇasutta. ����� �worsh�� ��� ��o� �����rely �rejected �by � th� � recurring � motif� � �� �h��� � ��d � �h� � metaphors. � ��ording � ommu- th� � ���� � �riptures. � I� � �h� � realm � of � �h� � gods, � �mpowerm��� �hrough � � nity ���rrativ�� �/ ������ �of �memory, ���������y �of �� �marginalised �minority � co���� �with �bo�� �r���� �of ��h� ������ ��� ����d ��o �b� ��ossible. �I� ���rm� �of � ‘living’ �ommunity ����um�� �historiograph��� ���gnificance, ���������y � their ��������b�� ��resence, ��h� ��ranslocalised �r���� �of ��h� ������ ����y �� � wh�� mo� �� h� istor��� work� o� � ��h� �������m ���T � amilnadu h� �� b� ��� ��round � similar u� niversalising ���d mo� tivating ro� �� ��� �����r � eligiou� ��maginatio� � ‘rise’ ���d ‘d� ecline’ of� �������m �onstructed from� ����riptio��� r� ecord� ��� � as the concept of tīrthaṅkaras ‘� currently ���ving’ ���M � ahāvideha, ��h� d� is- th� ��o�� �histor��� ��ource. ���� �o������� �functioning ��� ��� �����rmediary ����� �betw��� �our �world � and ��h� r� ealm �of ��h� ���berated ��ouls. � Tamil Jaina Stories of Persecution and Identity Construction Pilgrimag�� ��o �d������ ���red �mou������ ��uch ��� ���mm��� �Śikhara, � situated �betw��� �heav�� ���d ���rth, ��deally ��mu���� ��h�� ��ro��� �of ��b- Th� � ��ory � of � o�� � “Cakk��� � rājā”, � �opularly � referred �o � � �� �h� � stractio� ��� ��h� �ritually �generated ��xper���� �of �distancing ���d ���mpo- “sumaṉtān talai pattu katai” �(o�� �who �held ���� �heads) ��� �u� �mo�� �o� � rarily ��ranscending ��veryday �oncerns. Ak� �� ��o ����� �pūjā and vandanā th� m� ind� of� ��h� T� am�� �������of � ��outh Ar� co� r� egion. A� ru� ler of� G� ing�� /� � , � �h� � yātrā � �o � ��mm��� � Śikhar� � re-or�������� �h � � � �ru� � ���grim, � Cenj� �(Du����� �K�������� �Nayak ��� ��o�� ��radition) �from �� ��ower ����� � step-by-step, � �way � from � �h� � �xter�������� � of � �h� � world � �oward� � �h� � sough� �� �high ����� �brid� �for �himself. �H� �w��� ��o ��h� �brāhmiṇ� �who � self-realizatio� of� ��h� �����r ��o������� of� ��h� ��ou� (� � ����f-validating ��roc- told �him ��h� ������� �wer� �of �� �higher �����. �H� ��ough� �� �brid� �from ��h� � ��� �becau�� �of � �h� �willpower �required �for � ��mbing ��h� �mou����� �o� � Jainas. Th� � �������, ����ulted by� �� ��ow �����ru � ler ����king ��g � ir� from� ��heir � �� ��mpty ���omach). �Looking �dow� �from ��h� �remo�� ����k� �of �Mou�� � community, ��� ��ur� ����ulted �him �by ��ying �� �dog ��o ��h� �wedding ��o�� �o� � Pārasnāth o� � ��h� d� ������ �������, mo� �� ����grim� from� bo� th �����d � enomina- th� �wedding �day, ���d �fled ��h� �����. �H� �retaliated �by �ordering ���vering � tions feel hardly affected by the perpetual legal disputes and scholastic of �head� �of ������� ��� �Cenj� �ountry. �Fearing ��heir ���ves, �many ������� � deb���� ��� �d������ ������. �They �rather ���joy ��h� ��otalizing ��xper���� �of � converted ��o ��h� ����v� �faith �by ��mearing ���red ���h �o� ��heir �foreheads. �

 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

They �r � � � ����d � �h� � ‘nīr � ��� � ��yiṉārs’ � by � �h� �Tam�� � ������. �Accord- of �7th ��o �9th ����ur��� AD.� �I� �ontinu�� ��hrough �other ���riods, �beyond � ing ��o ��hem ��h��� ��r� ��h� ��r����� �day �Śaiv� �veḷḷāḷar �ommunity, �who � the ���radigm, �onstantly ����king ��o r� efresh ��h� ��dentity qu� estion. � ����� � follow � ����� �ustom� � of � ‘koḷḷāmai’ � (non-killing), � �voiding � m��� � Bu� mo� �� ��rtainly ��h� bhakti� ���riod ���rsecutio� ����� ��h� ‘b� ase’ for� m� ar- and ������g �befor� �dark. �Ther� ��r� �other �versio�� �with �minor �variatio�� � ginalisatio� of� ��h� �ommunity wh� ich ���ver qu� ��� m� anag�� ��o g� �� b� ack ��o � to ��h�� ���ory. � � �����u� ��� ���med �for, ��� ��h� ���rly ����ur��� �BC, ���d AD.� � For ��h� T� am�� ������� ��h� ‘o� ther’ w� er� (� they d� istinguished ��hemselv�� � O�� do� �� ��o� �om� ��ro�� ��ociolog��� or� h� istorically �ontextualised � from ���d �f��� �victimised �by) ��h� �Śaiv�� ���d ��h� �brāhmiṇ; ���d ��h� �Śaiv� � stud��� ��round ��h��� �ommunity ���or��� of� ��h� T� am�� �������. If� ��h�� ���ory � and � brāhmiṇ � �d�������� � �� � ��m�� � ���m � juxtaposed, � or � �� �xtensio� � of � �� ��o ���rongly �remembered �regarding ��heir �ommunity, �did ��� �histori- each �other. �According ��o ��hem ��h� �Śaiv� �Veḷḷāḷar� ��� �f�� �wer� �� ����� � cally ���k� �����? Ev� �� ��� ��h� m� etaphor��� ���vel, ��� ��� ����riguing ��h�� ��h�� � ����� �ommunity �(according ��o ��hem) ��h�� �had �b��� �victimised ����o ���- story do� �� ��o� h� av� ���y m� entio� ��� ��h� work� � o� � �������m ���T � amilnadu, � tering ��h� �Śaiv��� �religiou� �order. � ev�� ��� �� �‘wandering �����’ ��h�� ��h� ������� �remember, �recou�� �(and ��� � Th� ���rsecutio� ���or��� of� d� iffer��� ���m� ���riod� ���gnify ��h� w� ay� ��� � th�� ������, �re-live). �O�� ��� ��rying ��o ��o��� ��h� ���ory �with�� ��h� �ques- which ��h� �Tam�� ������� �onstructed ��heir ��dentity �vis-à-vis ��h� �other(s). � � tio� of� ��h� T� am�� ������ ��dentity u� nder ��hreat, ���d ��heir ���rceptio� of� ��h� � B� � �� �h� � brāhmiṇs, � or � �h� � Śaiv� � bhak�� � bards, � or � �h� � Cakk��� � rājā � of � other community closest to them in attitudes and perceptions on certain Cenji. � Mo�� � of � �h��� � figur� � �� �h� � memory � of � �h� � ommunity � �� �h� � everyday h� abits, ��h� ‘� nīr-pūci’ Ś� aiv� v� eḷḷāḷars. Or� ���rh��� ��h�� ���ory h� �� � ‘mainstream’ �/ ��owerfu� �others, �who �victimised ��h� T� am�� �������. mor� ��o ��� ��h�� ��h� ���rsecutio� �of �������? � Th�� �Cenj� �regio� ���d ��outh �Arco� ����m ��o �hav� ��umerou� ���or��� � Other ������ �of �Identity �- V� illag� ���Th � eatr� � – ��her� ��� h�� � �Muṭṭā� ��āvu���� ���ory, ��h� �Desingu �raj� ���ory, �Draupad� � stories, ��h� ��bove-mentioned ��kk��� rājā� ���ory, ��h� Nī� li-Nilak�� ���ories, � Village, for� ��h� T� am�� �������, ��� ��h� ‘� theatre’ wh� er� h� istory ��� ����yed � etc. �Cenj� �– ��outh Ar� co� ����m� ��o ��bound ��� ���ory �������g ��raditions. A� �� � out; ���d ��� ��h�� ��ro��� �giv�� ��h� �ommunity ���� ��dentity, �besid�� �other � th��� ���or��� �hav� ��heir �ow� ���rspectiv� �o� ��h� �region. �A �omparativ� � id�������� ��uch ��� �����, ����guag� ���d ��o �forth. �Ther� ��� ��h� ��ocal, �re- analy��� �of ��h� ���or��� �may ��� �our�� �of ���m� ����d ��o ���w ���formatio� � gio��� ������ �(Tamil) �history ��h�� ��hey ���� ��hemselv�� ��� ���r� �of �rather � o� ��h�� �region, �or ��h� �Tam�� �������, ��h�� �may �b� �missed ��f ����riptio��� � th�� �o�� �monolith� ����-Jaina, ����-Ind��� ������ �history. Th� eir ����� ��� � record� ��r� ���k�� ��� ��heir �f�� �, ��� ��h� ��o�� ��our�� �of �reconstruct- history ��� �vectored ��hrough ��h� �history �of ��heir �village; ��h� ����ociatio� � ing ��heir �history. � of ��heir �villag� �vectored ��hrough �history �of ��heir �religion; ��heir �villag� � Ther� ��r� ���or��� �(o�� �would ���� ��xamples) �which �refl�� ��ffor�� ��� � �� ��h� �history �of �Tam�� ������ �religion, ���� ����� ��here. �Each �villag� �h�� � land ����ropriatio� ���d ����king �ontro� �over ��h� ��our�� �of �ultivation. � ��� ow� � ��mpor���� w� ith�� �� ��rculatory �����– � ���red ���d ���ular; ���- Th� �reaso�� �for �onfl�� ���d �ontestatio� �om� �from ��h� ��o������ ���d � tiquity �of ��h� �villag� ���d ���� ����k �with �religio� ��� om�� ething ��verybody � econom� �oncer�� ���w � ��� –� ����d, ��ower, ��� ��ur� ����rinsically ����ked ��o � str����� �on. � � ideology ���d r� eligiou� ��ystems. Th� � r� easo�� h� av� ��o b� � ����� ��o� m� erely � �� �religiou� �����gonism �bu� ��� ��h� ���rger �ownersh�� ���d �ontro� �of �re- Th� �Cakk��� ��ājā ���ory ���d ���� �Motif� � sources, m� anifesting o� nly ���rtially ��� ��h� ����ur� of� r� eligiou� �����gonism � and �onflict. Wh� ��� ���������y ������ ���d Buddh� ��� r� eligiou� �����blishm���� � Ther� ���, �for �one, ��h� ��ower ����� ���g�� � ��o ��h� �‘Cakk��� �rājā’, �which � contested �for ��uppor� �from �ruling ������� �(and ��h� �����y) ��� ��hifted ��o � may ��x����� ��h� ����ur� �of �respo��� ��o �h�� ��ropo��� ����king �� �marriag� � Jaina-Śaiv� �(and ��o �� ���mited ��x���� V� aiṣṇav� �) �– �brāhmiṇ��� �onflict. � � ������� �– ��ying �� �dog ��o �� ��o�� ���d ����ving �� o�� �� �o� ���� �ollar �– ���d � Th� ���or��� �– ���k� ��h� ��kk��� �rājā ���ory �– �only �giv� �� �‘starting ��oint’ �of � also ��x������ ��h� ����ur� of� ��unishm���� h� � ��� ����d ��o �hav� m� eted o� � ��h� � � �differ��� ����ure, ��o ��o��� ��h� �Tam�� �������’ �ow� �onstructio� �of ��heir � community (b� eheading ��h� �������). Bu� � ��her� m� ay b� � o� ther ���g��� ��o ��h� � identity ��� ������ �veḷḷāḷars. A� nd ��� �������. story. Thur� sto� r� ecord� V� enk������� N� ayak� (� ����� K� �������� N� ayaka)’� � tim� ��o �b� �1478. �“By ����� �14th ����ury, ��orther� T� amilnadu �w�� �organ- North Bengal (Ancient Varendra): An Innovative ised ����o fiv� � or� ���x ��rov���� �����d rājya� or ucāvadi...; ��h�� ��dministra- tiv� ��ystem...w�� �highly ��xploitativ� ���d �olluded �with ��o�� � � Sub-Centre of Jaina Sculptural Art leader� �(nāyaka) ���d ����dlord� �(kaṇiyāḷar) ��� ��xtorting ��� �much �rev- enu� ��� ��ossib�� ...� .”� �A � nd ���1429, � ��“r � evo�� of� �ultivator� ���d ��rtisans”� � Gerd ��.R. �Mevissen, �FU-Berlin also ����m� ��o �hav� ���k�� �����. �I� ��h�� �ontext, �ould �w� �onjectur� � that these nāyakas �(and ��heir �hiefs) �migh� ��ossibly �hav� �b��� ���ded � I� ��h� 11� th ���d 12� th ����uries, Nor� th B� eng�� (� present-day D� inajpur ���d � and ��������d by� ��r���� ������ ��� ��h�� ��xercise? I� � wh� ich ����, ��h� T� am�� � Rajshah� �distr��� ��� � ���d ��h� ��djoining �Malda, �North ���d � ������ �(agriculturists) �fled ���d ��heir ����d �w�� �usurped �by �brāhmiṇ� ���d � South D� inajpur d� istr��� ���W � ��� B� engal, I� ndia) form� ed ��h� ������rnmo�� � Śaiv� � veḷḷāḷar� � – � �h� � �����r � being � �� � rg� �� er � majority � �oday � �� �om� � extensio� �of ������ ���flu��� ���d ��r� ��roductio� �o� ��h� �Ind��� ��ubcon- of � �h� � �reas. �Th� �ommu  nity � of � Manjaputhur � Chettiar� � ���o � ��rr���� � tinent. � � �ommunity �orig�� ���ory ���milar ��o ��h�� �of ��h� �Tam�� �������. �They ��r� � Though ��h� ��umber �of ��ulptur�� �know� ��o �hav� �originated �from � Śaiv� �veḷḷāḷars. �They �worsh�� �� �deity ��h�� �resemb��� �� �tīrthankara im- North B� eng�� ���qu � ��� ��m��� -� ����� ��h�� ��doz � �� ��ulptur�� h� av� ��urfaced � age. I� � ��om� ������ ���T � amilnadu, ���y ����, ��h� �������do � h� av� ��h� ����� � so f� ar -,� ��heir ���y-ou� ���d ��onograph� f� eatur�� ��re, how� ever, qu� ��� d� is- suffix �of �Cheṭṭi. ��omething ���riou� �had ��o �hav� �happened �which �gav� � ���� from� ��h� �ontemporaneou� ������ ��ulptur�� ��roduced fur� ther w� est, � r��� ��o ��h�� ���ory �- �� ���ory ��h�� ��� ���r� �of ��h� �ollectiv� �memory �of ��h� � i.e. ��� ��h� �wester� ���r� �of �Beng�� ���d ��h� ��djoining ��r��� �of ��harkhand � Tam�� ������� �of ��h� ��outh Ar� co� �region. A� �� ��ho�� �who �feared �for ��heir � and �Bihar. liv�� �onverted ��o �Śaivism �(and ��o� ���y �other �religiou� ����) ��dorning � Th� �����r �w��� �giv� �� �brief ��ou�� �of ���� ��h� ������ ��ulptur�� �from � th� ���red ���h, �‘throwing ��way ��heir ���red ��hreads’. �Th � ey ����um� ��h� � ������ �Varendr� �know� ��o �far ���d �w��� ��h�� �focu� �o� ��r���� ��ono- identity �of �Śaiv� �(nīr pūci) veḷḷāḷars or nīr pūci nayiṉārs �(th� ������� � graph� �features, ���mely ��h� ��r����� ���d ��rrangem��� �of ��ubsidiary � who � �meared � ��red � ��h). � Did � �h� � ory�� � �� � orig����� � �mong � �h� � figur�� �(Navagrahas, �Dikpalas, ���.) ��urrounding ��h� ����r�� �deity, ��hu� � Tam�� ������� �of ��outh Ar� cot? �Or �w�� ��� �� �Śaiv��� �reviv����� ���ory �m���� � proving � �hat, � o� � �h� � o�� � hand, � �h� � ����� � �ulptor� � �� �h� � �����r� � Di- to ��how ��h� w� eak���� ���d f� ear of� �� �ommunity wh� ich ��urned ����o Ś� aiv� � aspor� �wer� ���fluenced �by ��h� �Hindu ���d �Buddh��� ��magery ��rev����� � ‘nayiṉārs’ ��o ���v� ��heir ���ves? �Or �of �� ��uccessfu� �‘vanquishing’ �of ��h� � �� ��h�� ��r�� ���d, o� � ��h� o� ther h� and, ��hey d� eveloped ��heir ow� � ����ovativ� � ����� �ommunity �from ��h� �region? � approach ��� ��ommodating ��h��� ���flu���� ����o ������ ��magery. O�� ��� ����o ��ooking ��� �‘persecution’ �from �outsid� ��h� ��urview �of �� � religiou� � (‘communal’) �o  nfl�� � ��one, � �o � re-v���� � �h� � ���ur� � of � ���ra- veḷḷāḷar � onfl�� � betw��� � �h� � Śaiv� � ��d � ����� � veḷḷāḷars. � By � �h� � �ost- The Jain Cave Paintings at Ellora bhakti � ��riod � �h� � ������ � ���m � �o � hav� � � relatively � greater � hold � over � south Arcot and surrounding areas rather than and Kancipuram O��� �Qvarnström �& �N���� �Hammer of ��h� ���rly ���riods. Wh� er� ��hey �forced ��o �migr��� ��o ��h� �former �regio� � University �of �Lund � �� ��om� ��oint? � The history of the Tamil Jaina community does not remain a static I� �o�� �of ��h� �ompartm���� �of ��h� ����� ��ve, �Indr� ���bha, �34 ��������g� � o�� ��h�� ���b � � ��xplained ��g����� ��h� dom� ����� of� ��h� bhakti� , ��grar��� � decor��� ��h� �����r ��hr��� �(garbhagṛha) ���d ��h� �m��� �hall. �Th��� ������- expansio� �of ��h�� ���riod, �roy�� ����ronag� ���d �d����� �with�� �� ���riod � ings, ��rimarily fou� nd o� � ��h� ������gs, v� ary ��� ���y�� ���d mo� tif ���d d� isplay �

 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

d������ ��r����� qu� ality o� � �� ���r w� ith ��ho�� ��� ��h� ����ghbouring Buddh� ��� � near Kov� ilpatti. C� arved ��ro�� ��h� ��urf�� of� �� ���rg� ro� ck form� atio� ��h�� � cav�� �of Aj� aṇṭā. �I� �our ��resentatio� �of ��om� �of ��h��� ��������gs, �w� ���- dom������ ��h� ����d���� ��r� �� ���r��� �of ��m��� ������d ������ �who ��r� ��o� � tem�� � �o � ���ustr��� �h � � � over��� �d � eolog��� � �hem� �uniting � �h� � differ��� � identifiab�� ��hrough ����her ������d��� figur� �� or� d� istinctiv� ��mblems. �I � n- painting� ��� �w��� ��� ��h� �over��� ��motio��� ������r� �of �joy ��� ��rticulated � cluded ��mong ��h��� ��rving� ��r� ��mag�� of� Gomm� aṭa/Bāhub��� ���d ��h� � �� �f���� ��xpressio�� ���d �bodily �gestur�� �of �humans, �vidyādharas and ���� �godd����� �Ambikā ���d �Padmāvatī. �Although ��h� �� ��� �Kalu- gods. Th� � ��resentatio� ��� ���r� of� �� ���rger ��roj�� d� elineating ��h� h� istori- gum���� ��r� ���depend��� ��rving� ���d ��r� �of��� ��ompanied �by ���di- �� �background, �ru��� ���d �quality �of �raftsmanship, ��r����� ���d ��mo- vidu�� �donativ� ����riptions, ��hey �do, ��onetheless, ��mpar� �� �relatively � tio��� �������, r� eligiou� mo� tivatio�� ���d �����rpretatio�� of� ��h� ����� ��v� � uniform ��rogram. I� � ��h�� �����r, I� w� ��� ��xplor� how� K� alugumalai'� r� elief � painting� ��� �Ellora. carving� �demar��� ���red ����� ��� ���milar �way� ��� ��h�� ��xpressed ��� � rock-cu� ���m���� of� ��h� ���m� ���m� ���riod. Though� o� �� ����o� ��hysical- Orienting Jaina Polity: Temple Building in ly �����r �� ����� ��� �Kalugumalai, ��h� ��y��� ���d ��rrangem��� �of ��mag�� � o� ��h� ��urf�� �of ��h� �rock ��ugg��� �onnectio�� �with ��magery ��rved ��� � Vijayanagara-Period Kanara cav� �����riors. �With ��h�� ����� �of ���quiry, �I �w��� ����o ��xam��� ��h� ����ur� � of �devotio��� ����v����� ��� �Kalugum���� ���d �whether �or ��o� ��h� �relief � Joh� �Henry ����, �University �of �Pennsylvania carving� �ould �hav� �functioned ��� ���milar �way� ��� ����hrined �rock-cu� � images. ’� ���rrow �o����� zo� �� k� now� ���K � anar� u� nderw��� ��rofound � economic, ��olitical, ��ocial, ���d r� eligiou� ��ransformatio�� dur� ing ��h� V� i- New Approach to the Study of Jaina Art jayanagar� ���riod. �Th� �regio� �becam� ��h� ��rimary �����rnatio��� ��rad� � and Architecture and �ommunicatio�� ����k �for ��h� �upland ��mpire, ���d �� �multi-layered � structur� �of �����rlocking ��o�� ���d ��xtraterritor��� ����r� �of ��uthority �w�� � developed �for ���� �oversight. �Cru��� ��o ��h� �functioning �of ��h�� �omplex � Maru�� �Nand�� �P. T� iwari, �Banar�� �Hindu �University � regim� �w�� ��h� �rapid �r��� �of �� �onstellatio� �of ���mi-autonomou� �hief- taincies responsible for the direct administration of the bulk of this ter- Jainism as one of the three main religious and cultural streams of India ritory. �Though ��heir �orig��� �rem��� �unclear, ���ver�� �of ��h� �mo�� ��romi- h�� �ontributed ��mmensely ��o ��h� ��r� �heritag� �of �India. �I �w��� �focu� �o� � ���� � of � �h��� � �o�� � ruling � hou��� � wer� � Digambar� � �����, � who � �� �h� � som� �of ��h� ��r��� �of ������Ar � � �which ����d� �our ��������o� ���d ����o� �for � cour�� �of ��heir �����d����� �onstructed ��mpressiv� ��o������ �������� � futur� ���udies. Th� � ���udy of� ������Ar � � ���d Ar� chitectur� (� including ��o�� � and �religiou� ����r�� ��� ��h� �o����� �zone. � and � �������gs) � �hould � b� � ��k�� � u� � �� � ��� �otality � ��d � ����grated � way, � A� ���r� of� �� ���rger ��roj�� ��racing ��h� mu� ������ w� ay� ���wh � ich mo� nu- both �with�� ���d �beyond, ��o �hav� �� �fu�� �view �of ��h� �development. �I� ���� � m����� � religiou� � �rchitectur� � w�� � �mployed � �� �ro����� � of � �o������ � spir�� ���d �manifestatio� ������ r�� � �h�� ���way� �revealed ��� ��� ���ho� �of � and ��o��� ���gotiatio� �betw��� ��h�� ���ripher�� �zo�� ���d ��h� �hegemo�� � ����� ������� �of �unceasing �r����� �for ���d �observ��� �of ��on-, � centre, I� ��xam��� ��wo d� istinctiv� �������of � ���m���� bu� ��� by� ��h��� ������ � non-acquisition, ��bsolu�� r� enunciatio� ���d r� igorou� ��usterity ��xpressed � chiefs. �I � ��rgu� ��h�� K� anara’� ��ongitud���� bastis� —� ��ypology d� eveloped � through ��h� ��wo �ustomary ��ostur�� of� ��h� ��r����� r� epresentatio�� of� ��h� � from ��h� ���r����� �year� �of ����� ��o������ ��r����� ��� ��h� �regio� ���d �find- Jinas or tīrthaṅkaras �(dhyāna- and kāyotsarga-mudra) and also ing ���� ����r��� ��xpressio� ��� ��h� �15th-century �Tribhuv��� �Cūdāmaṇ� � �� ��h� �rendering �of ��h� �����od�� �from ��heir ���ves. Caityālay� ��� �Muḍabidri—wer� �frequently �utilized �by ��heir ����ro�� ��o � Holistic studies should also be taken into consideration in order to embody ���d �reinfor� ��h� �ooperativ� ���d ��ymbio�� ������� �of ��h� �re- assess and analyse the process and nature of interactions in the con- lationsh�� b� etw��� K� anara’� ����� �hief����� ���d ��heir u� ltim��� ov� erlord� � tex� �of ��h� �o����� �of ������ ��rt. �Th� ������ �ācāryas ���d ��r����� �borrowed � �� ��h� �Vijayanagar� �������. �By �ontrast, �I �����rpr�� �� ���r��� �of �catur- d������ ���d � �religiou� ����m���� �(showing ���k� �Buddh� ��mages, ��wo �deer � mukha bastis bu� ��� ��� ��h� r� egio� ��� ���dicativ� of� ��ubsequ��� fr� actur�� ��� � flanking ��h� -cakra� ), ��uch ���L � akshmi, ���rasvati, G� anesha, A� sh- th�� ���gotiated ��ord. �From � ��h� m� id-16th ����ury, w� ith ����ralized ��u- tadikpalas, �Navagrahas, ������ �haracter� �(, �, �) � thority o� � ��h� w� ane, ��h� ��o�� ������ �hief� w� er� ��� ����� ��b�� ��o �����r� fu� lly � either �directly �or �with ��om� �hanges. �Th� �Parshvanath� ������ ���m��� � their �ow� ��o������ ��mbitions, ���d �I ��ropo�� ��h�� �o�� �method �by �which � of �Khajuraho �(954 �A.D.) ��� �o�� ��uch ��xample, �whereo� ��h� �figur�� �of � they �����ged ��heir budd� ing ��utonomy w� �� ��hrough ��h� d� evelopm��� ���d � Vedic-Pur��� �d������ ���k� ��hiva, �, ���ma, �Balarama, �Kam� ��r� � deploym��� � of � � monum����� � �rchitectur�� � �y�� � �vocativ� � of � univer- carved �both ���dependently ���d ���ong �with ��heir �respectiv� ���k��� �(con- ��� �kingship. � �I ��mploy �both �form�� ���d ����riptio��� ��vid��� ��o ��up- sorts). �O� ��h� �other �hand, ������ �figur�� ��r� ��rved �o� ��h� ���m���� �of � por� �my �����rtio�� ��h�� �Kanara’� ������ �b����� �wer� ��o� �ju�� �monum���� � Vedic-Pur��� ��raditio� ��� �Osian, Kh� ajuraho, Bhub� anesvara, K� arnatak� � imbued � with � omplex � religiou� � �ymbolism, � bu� � ��multaneously � wer� � (Vidyashankar ���mple). constructions used to clarify the positioning of Kanara’s Jaina polities Further, ������ r�� � �w�� ��o� ��� ���� �monotonou� ���beit, ��� �w�� ��qually � with�� ��h� �omplex ��o������ ����d���� �of ���rly �moder� ��outh �India. � � rich ��� �����h��� �qualities, ����g��� ���d �representatio��� �variety. ������ � imag�� ��� ��ord��� w� ith ��h� ���x�� ��r� ���way� ��how� b� eautifu� (� Rupa- v��� ���d ��urupa). Th� � d� ������ ���k� Y� akshas, Y� akshis, ���rsvati, L� akshmi, � Defning Jain Elements at Vaishnavi, ��hiva, B� alaram, G� anesh� ���d o� ther� ��r� ��how� ��xceptional- Udayagiri-Khaṇḍagiri, Orissa ly �beautiful. �Likew��� ��h� �magnifi��� ���m���� �of �Deogarh, �Khajuraho, � Delvada, �Kumbhariya, ��hatrunjaya, �O���� �yielding �figur�� �of �Vitarag� � ����� �Leoshko, �University �of T� exas ����� � ��d � vibrating � -Yakshi, � Mahavidy� � ��d � Apsar�� � figur�� � mostly ��how ��h� �fusio� �of ����ritu�� ���d �worldly �representations, �with � Udayagiri-Khandagir� � �� � Or���� � �� � w��� � know� � for � ��� �ong-enduring � th� ��xceptio�� of� E� llor� ���d ��hravanbelgo�� wh� ich ��roj�� m� ainly ����r- religiou� ����vity. �Th� ����� ���m��� ��� ��h� ��o� �of �Khaṇḍagir� �w�� ��oted � itu�� ������� ��hrough ��h� ��mag�� �of ��h� �Upsarg�� �(inflictions) �of �Parsh- �� ��h� ���rly ����������h ����ury ��� �only �recently �bu��� �wh��� ��h� �variou� � vanath� ����� ���d �rigorou� ��usterity �of �Bahub��� ��� �-mudra reliefs found throughout the site date as early as second century BCE. � � with ����wining �reepers. � � I�� ��dentity ��� �� ����� �����, how� ever, m� ���� ��h�� ���h � �� ��o� b� ��� fu� lly ���ud- Th� ���udy �of ��ocial-engineering �of ����� ��r� ��� ����o �required �becau�� � ied ��� ���rm� of� ��h� ��urviving ��r����� ��vidence. Th� �� �����r �onsider� ��h�� � �� ��hrived m� ainly w� ith ��h� ��uppor� of� m� asses. Th� � ������ ��mag�� of� Ku� sh- evid��� ���d �wh�� ���m � igh� �rev��� ��bou� ����� �religiou� ��ractice. � �� ���riod from� M� athur� ���d ���ver�� o� ther ������b � ear ������mony ��o ��uch � so��� ���gineering. Th� � ���d����� ����riptio�� �of ����� ��mag�� �of �Kush�� � Demarcating Sacred Space: period �frequently ��rovid� ��h� ���m�� �of �merchants, ��raders, ���rfumers, � The Jina Images at Kalugumalai goldsmiths, ��ronsmiths, �����ors, �barbers, �dancers, ��rostitu��� ���d �differ- ��� �guild� �of ��raders, �who �ontributed ��o ��h� �making �of ������ ��mages. � Likew��� � gr��� � ��m���� � �� � Osian, � Kumbhariya, � jg�� ir, � �hatrunjaya, � L��� �Nad��� �Owen, �University �of �North T� exas , � wer� � �rected � with � �h� � �uppor� � ��d � ���ronag� � of � �rader’� � ��d � mer������ �ommunity. I� ��h� ��outher� d� istr��� of� T� am�� N� adu, ��her� ��r� �� ��umber of� m� ediev�� � Th� � unceasing �o  ncer� � �bou� � o� logy � (flora-fau�� � ��variably � ��- ���� ������ ��h�� f� eatur� ���rg� bou� lder� or� ou� tcro�� of� ���o�� ��h�� ��r� ��rved � sociated �with ������, �Bahub��� ���d ���� �other �deities) ���d ���� �visu�� ��x- with ����� ��mages. O� �� ��uch ����� ���o �� cated ��� h�� � v� illag� of� K� alugumalai, � pression in Jain art from the earliest times through the ages is another impor���� ��o��� �of �futur� ���ud��� �of ������ ��r� ���d ��rchitecture.

 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

Jain Temple Art and Ritual in the Diaspora: tions. Th� � ���r����� V� aiṣṇav� T� am�� �bhakti poetry �d���� ��xtensively �with � The Derāsar at Potters Bar Kṛṣṇ� bu� � ��o� �much �with ��āma. Buddhism � ��d � ������m � ���m � �o � hav� � ��gaged � �� � ��riou� �o  nfl�� � from ��bou� ��h� �10th ����ury. �Nilakeci, ��h� ���onymou� ����� �work, ���- Prakash ��hah, �Qu��� �Mary �Colleg� �London gag�� ��� �viru���� ��olem�� ��� ��� �onslaugh� �o� �Buddhism. �Th� ��uthor � of � �h�� � work � justifi�� � h�� � work � with � �h� � ���m � �h�� � Kuntalakeci, the Th�� ��hotograph� ��resentatio� ��rovid�� �� �view �of ��h� �ritu��� ���d ����- Buddh��� ���rrativ� ��oem ��� �Tamil, �w�� ��o �devastating ��� ���� �����k� �o� � thetics enacted during the pratishtha mahotsav of the Jain derāsar Jainism ��h�� �h� �w�� �ompelled ��o �retaliate. �Nilakeci has an elaborate (temple) ��� �Potter� �Bar ��� �Hertforshire, �England �(mainly ���Augu � st commentary ����o. A� �Śaiv� �ommentator ��o �Civagnanacittiyar, �� �Śaiv� � 2005). Th� � derāsar� ���bo � ��� ��h� �����u� of� b� eing ��h� fir� �� �śikharbandha � Siddhā��� ��hilosoph��� �work, �w�� �using �for �h�� ��urpo�� �Nilakeci’s ar- temple in Europe and as such marks the coming into prominence of the gum���� ��g����� Buddh� ism. Buddh� ism ���d �������m ����m ��o h� av� w� eak- Gujar��� V� ��� O� shw�� �ommunity ��om� 30-40� y� ear� ��fter ��mbarking o� � � ened ���h �other. ��� �migratory �rou��� �from �Gujar�� ���d �E��� Afr� �� ��o �Britain. �Th� ��res- A� o� �� of� ���� ��urviv�� ���rategies, �������m w� �� ��dopting v� ariou� m� eas- entatio� ��rovid�� �� �window ����o ��h� ����� �world ��� �Br����� ���d �how ��h�� � ur�� ��o �hav� ��om� �outward �onformity �with �Śaivism ���d �Vaiṣṇavism, � community of Jains uses ritual enactment and architecture to recreate withou� � ompromising � ���d � eology. � Buddhism, � �� � whole, � do�� �o � � � ��� �osm� �univer�� ���d �religiou� ��dentity ��� ��h� �British �ontext. � seem ��o h� av� ��dapted ��h�� ���rategy. ����� ��olem�� ��g����� ��h� w� eak Bud� - dhism ����o �migh� �hav� �b��� �guided �by ��h�� ���rategy ��o �b� �o� ��h� �good � South Indian Jainism: sid� �of ��h� �Śaiv�� ���d �Vaiṣṇavas. �Bu� ��h�� �outward ���milarity ��� �� �dan- The Role of Religious Polemics in Tamil gerou� ���rategy ��� ��h�� �ould �hav� �facilitated �many ������ o� nverting ��o � Śaivism ���d V� aiṣṇavism ����o. Alv�������� V� eluppillai, �University �of Ar� izona, T� empe

Th�� �����r �w��� ��r�� ��h� �developm��� ��outh �Ind��� �������m ��� �gener�� � and �Tam�� �������m ��� ���rticular, �focusing �o� ��h� �ro�� �of �religiou� ��o- lem�� ��� �Tamil. �Th� �relev��� �view� �of ��holar� ���k� �Padmanabh ������ � (1979), �Pau� �Dund�� �(2002) ���d �Peter ��halk �(2002) �w��� �b� ��xamined � wh�� d� ealing �with ��h� ��urviv�� of� �������m ��� ��outh �India. � Religiou� ���rif� ��� �Tamilnadu ��mong �Śaivism,Vaiṣṇavism, �������m � and �Buddhism �beg�� �with ��h� �Śaiv� ���d �Vaiṣṇav� �bhak�� �movem���� � from ��h� � 7th ����ury �CE. �Śaivism �w�� � ����king �������m �most, ��v�� � though � �her� � wer� � ���o � ���v� � �olem�� � �g����� �h � � � other � �hr�� � reli- gions. �Both ��h� �Pallav� ���d ��h� �Pandy� �king� �had �becom� ������ ���d � th� �Śaiv� ������� ��ucceeded ��� �onverting ��hem ��o �Śaivism. �Śaivism ���d � Vaiṣṇavism �����ked �Buddhism ����o �bu� ��o� ��o ��h�� ��xtent. �������m ���d � Buddhism �hav� ��o� ��reserved ��heir ���d� �of ��h� ���ory �of ��h�� ���rife. According ��o ������, ��h� �Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahābhārata �hav� �be- com� ��o ��opular ��h�� ��h� ������h � ad ��o ���gag� ���r � eworking of� ��h� ���or��� � �� � � �urviv�� � ��rategy. � I� �Tamilnadu, � �h� � ����� � wer� � �o� � under � much � Ellen Gough pressur� �becau�� ��h� �Śaiv�� �wer� �k��� ��o� ��o �glorify ��ām� ���d �Kṛṣṇ� � incarnatio�� �of �Viṣṇu. �Th� �Śaiv� �Tam�� �bhakti poetry has allusions to th� ��wo gr� ��� �����bu � � w� ithou� g� iving ��redom����� ��o ��h� ��wo ����rna-

WORKSHOP 2009 JAINA SCRIPTURES AND PHILOSOPHY (11th JAINA STUDIES WORKSHOP AT SOAS)

March 12-13

Brunei Gallery Lecture Theatre School of Oriental and African Studies, Russell Square, London WC1H OXG

Research on the Jaina Āgamas, once the main domain of Jainology and Prakrit Studies, has become rare nowadays, while stud- ies of Jaina philosophy and religion based on sources in Sanskrit, Middle and New-Indo- are increasing. The conference seeks to reconnect research on canonical and non-canonical sources and their uses. Contributions are invited on Jaina scriptures and philosophy.

For further details please see http://www.soas.ac.uk/jainastudies Inquiries: [email protected]

10 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

Jaina Art & Architecture Speakers Ingrid Schoon

Prof Avadhanula Vijaya Dr Peter Flügel Dr Lisa Nadine Owen Kumar Babu Chair, Centre of Jaina Studies Assistant Professor of Art History Department of Ancient Indian Department of the Study of Religions School of Visual Arts History, Culture and , School of Oriental and University of North Texas Osmania University, African Studies P.O. Box 305100 Hyderabad 500007, India. University of London Denton, TX 76203 USA [email protected] Thornhaugh Street [email protected] Russell Square Prof Nalini Balbir London WC1H OXG Prof Olle Qvarnström University of Paris-3 United Kingdom Department of History and Sorbonne Nouvelle [email protected] Anthropology of Religion (UFR Orient) Centre for Theology and 13 rue de Santeuil Niels Hammer Religious Studies 75230 Paris, France Department of History and Lund University [email protected] Anthropology of Religion Allhelgona Kyrkogata 8 Centre for Theology and SE-223 62 Lund, Sweden Dr Robert J. Del Bonta Religious Studies [email protected] 210 Post Street Lund University Suite 409 Allhelgona Kyrkogata 8 John Henry Rice San Francisco, CA 94108, USA SE-223 62 Lund, Sweden Department [email protected] [email protected] University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA Prof Christine Chojnacki Dr Janice Leoshko [email protected] Université Lyon 3 Department of Art & Art History Faculté de Lettres et Civilisations University of Texas Dr Prakash Shah 7 rue Chevreul Austin, Texas 78712 Department of Law 69007 Lyon, France USA Queen Mary [email protected] [email protected] University of London Mile End Road Dr Max Deeg Uma Maheshwari London E1 4NS Deptartment of Religious and Flat No.302, Seshadri Apartments, [email protected] Theological Studies 6-1-132 / 21, Cardiff University Skandagiri, Padmarao Nagar Prof Maruti Nandan Tiwari Colum Drive Seetaphalmandi P.O. Department of History of Art & Cardiff, CF10 3EU Secunderabad 500061, India Tourism Management [email protected] [email protected] Banaras Hindu University 221005, India Dr Christoph Emmrich Gerd Mevissen [email protected] Department and Centre for the Diplom-Ingenieur Study of Religion Institut für indische Philologie und Prof Alvapillai Veluppillai University of Toronto Kunstgeschichte Department of Religious Studies Erindale Room Freie Universität Berlin Arizona State University 123 St. George Street Königin-Luise Str. 34a P.O. Box 873104, Toronto ON M5S 2E8, Canada D-14195 Berlin, Germany Tempe AZ 85287-3104, USA [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

11 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

Jaina Studies at SOAS: A History

Peter Flügel ______esearch in Jainism has a long tradition at the School Board (AH� RB) o� � ��aina law and the Jaina community in of �Or������ ���d Afr� ��� ���ud��� �(SOAS) ��� ��h� �Uni- India and Britain. Th� �� r� efl��� ��o� o� nly ��h� qu� ality of� ��h� � vRersity � of � London. � I� � �� � ���ociated � with � �m����� � Ind- applicatio�� �bu� ����o ��h� �growing ���dem� ���d ��ub�� � olog���� ��uch ��� ���r �����h �Turner, ��oh� �Brough, �Arthur � inter��� ��� �������m, wh� ich ���o � �� of� ��h� ������ ���udied of� ��h� � Llewelly� B� asham, Du� ��� D� errett, P� admanabh ��. ������, � ������ �Ind��� �religions. � Rober� �Williams, ��oh� �Gray ���d ��. �Clifford �Wright, �who � Highly ����������d �field� ��� ��h� ��r�� ���d �hum������� � during ��heir ������� ��� ��OA� ��ublished ��xtensively ��� ��h� � such ��� ������ ���ud��� ��� ��urviv� ��� ��h� �urr��� ��onom- � field � of � ����� � ��udies. � Yet, � u���� � recently, � ������m � w�� � � ���m��� �only ��f ��reviously ���olated �researcher� �r���� � never ���ugh� ��� ��OA� ��or ���ywher� ����� �outsid� �India. � regio��� ���d �glob�� ����work� ��o ���rength�� ��heir �vo�� � Interested students had to turn to general courses on Indic and ��o �bid �ollaboratively �for �research �funds. A� � ��resent, � religio�� �or ��dvanced ������� ��� �����krit, �Prakrit, �Hind� � SOA� ��� ��h� �b��� �����d �������ution, �mayb� ��h� o� nly �o�� � or Guj� ar��� ��o g� ��� ��g � lim��� of� ��h� r� ich ����� �ultur�� h� erit- outsid� I� ndia, wh� ich ��� ��ur� ��h�� ���rateg� ��������y ����o � age. Th� �� u� nsatisfactory ����uatio� b� eg�� ��o b� � r� edressed ��� � �withou� �further ���frastructur�� ���vestments. � 1999 wh� �� ������ ���ud��� w� �� ���unched ��� ��� ���depend��� � Th�� f� �� ���w � idely r� ecognised bo� th ��� ���dem� ��r��� � field �of ���quiry ��� ��h� ���wly �formed �Departm��� �of ��h� � and w� ith�� ��h� g� lob�� ����� �ommunity. W� ith�� �� ��hor� ���- � Study of� �����gions. Th� � ���������v� w� �� ������red by� ��h� ����� � riod of time SOAS became one of the most important Dr ��u��� �L����� �(1948-2004) ���d �rendered �viab�� ��hrough � venu�� for� ������ ���ud��� ��� ��h� wor� ld. I� � ���ready fu� nctio�� � seed funding from the Jain Academy for the teaching of �� �� ����r�� ��od� �for �mu������ �ollaboratio�� �with ��hol- � two �our��� �o� �������m. �For ��om� ���me, ��u��� �L����� �had � ar� ��� �Br����� ���d �North Am� er�� ���d �with�� ��h� Euro-� � invited v� isiting samaṇīs� and samaṇs (neophy�� T� erāpanth � ���� �Network �of ������ ���udies, �which �w�� �����blished � ���� ��u�� ���d mo� nks) ��o g� iv� gu� ��� ����ur�� ��o h� er ������� � �� ��OA� ��� �November �2004, �with ��h� ��ociety �for ������ � o� � � (sic) � ��d �ur � tured � relationsh��� � with � �h� � Stud��� ��� �Kyoto ���d �� �gr��� ��umber �of �Univer������ ���d � growing ����� �ommu������ ��� �London. � ���� r� esearch ����r�� ���I � ndia, ��uch ��� ��h� Am� er��� I� nsti- � A� ��h� ���me, ������ ���ud��� w� er� ������ ���h �� � ���rly ����g�� � tu�� of� �Ind��� ���ud��� ��� �Gurgaon, ��h� �����V � ishv� �Bhar�� � of their transformation from a purely philological and Institu�� ���L � adnun, ��h� P.V.� I� nstitu�� ���V � aranasi, ��h� B.L.� � archaeolog��� ���deavour ��o ��h� �multidisciplinary ��x- � Institu�� ��� �Delhi, ���d ��h� �L.D. �Institu�� ���Ahm � edabad. � ploratio� �of �� ���ved �religiou� ��radition, �which ��� ��� ��ow. � ���� ��holar� ���d �member� �of ��h� �gener�� ��ub�� �with ��� � Th� �hang�� �wer� ��riggered �by �� ���r��� �of �field ���ud��� � inter��� ��� �������m �from ���� �over ��h� �world �drif� ����urally � �� ��h� �1980� ���d �1990s, �which �ontributed ��o� o� nly ��o � toward� ��OA� ��� �� �gateway ��o ��h� �uniqu� ���d �v��� �re- � ���d �omparativ� r� eligion, bu� � ����o ��o ����hropol- � sour�� ��� ��h� �museums, ��rchiv�� ���d ���brar��� �of �Lon- � ogy, ��r� �history, �history, ����guistics, ���d ��o �ross-discipli- � don. � nary �field� ��uch ��� �gender ���ud��� ���d �diaspor� ���udies. � Yet, ��h� r� ���� ��u����� of� ��OA� ��� h�� � fi� eld of� ������ � Th� ���w �focu� o� � �ontemporary �������m ����o ���jected �� � stud��� �would ��o� �hav� �b��� ��ossib�� w� ithou� ��h� ��o- � breath of fresh air into a then stagnant and inaccessible cal presence and the global connections of the London academ� ��ub-discipline, �����ology ���d �Prakr�� ���udies, � ���� �ommunity, �which ��� ��h� ���rg��� �outsid� �Ind�� ���d � and ����racted �� ���w �generatio� �of ���ud���� ��o ��h� ��h�� � strongly ��upportiv� �of ��h� �Centr� �of ������ ���udies. �I� ��� � largely �unexplored �bu� ��ow �rapidly �developing �multidis- � � ���radigm��� ��xam��� �of �how ����k� �betw��� ���dem� � ciplinary �field �of ������ ���udies. � institutio�� ���d �religiou� �ommu������ ��� ����mu���� ���- � Scholar� ��� ��h� U� niversity of� C� ambridg� ����yed �� ���- � ter��� ��� h�� � ���udy ���d �research �of ��m��� �bu� ���gnifi��� � tr�� �ro�� ��� ��h��� ���w �developments, ��ogether �with ��heir � academ� fi� eld� of� ���udy ��h�� ��r� ���dangered by� � � counterpar�� ��� ��h� CN� �� ���P � ar�� ���d ��h� D� ivinity ��hoo� � po����� �of �governm��� fu� nding. � �� �Harvard. �D������ ��h� �br������� �of ��heir ���oneering � Th� �m��� �meeting ��o��� ���d ��ub�� �focu� �of ��h� ��- � research, ��h��� ��ffor�� h� ad ��o �������g ���ructur�� ��ff��� o� � � tiv����� �of ��h� �Co�� ��r� ��h� Annual� Jain Lecture and the th� �field ��� �� �whole, �which �rem���� �fragmented ���d �dis- � Jaina Studies Workshops ��� �March, �which ��r� ��opular � continuou� �du� ��o ��h� ���k �of ��� �������utio��� b� ase. � with �both ���dem�� ���d ��h� ��ublic, ����uding �member� � From �1999 �onwards, ��OA� ��ook ��h� ����d ��� ��h� �field � of ��h� ����� �ommunity, �which �hav� ��h� o� pportunity ��o � through ���frastructur�� ����ovatio�� ��h�� �ulminated ��� � k��� ��hemselv�� ���formed ��bou� ��h� ������� ��dv���� ��� � th� �����blishm��� �of ��h� �Centr� �of ������ ���ud��� �(CoJS) � ����� ���udies, ��o ��har� ����� � ���d ��o ��xchang� �view� � �� �2004. Th� �� ����r� �offers, �for ��h� �fir�� ���me, ��h� ��ros- � with ����ding ��holar� ��� ��h� �field. Th� � �����ractio� �with � ��� �of �� ����b�� ���hor ���d �forum �for ��h� �glob�� ����work � the Jain community at the annual meetings is also one of of ����� ��holar� �ollaboratively ��o �develo� ������ ���ud- � th� �m��� ����ractio�� �for ����� ��holars, �who ��r� �����rested � ��� ��� ��� ���depend��� �����rdisciplinary �field �of ���quiry. � �� � making � �heir � work � know� � �o � � wider � �udience. � To- Th� ���������v�� �wer� �financed ���mo�� �����rely ��hrough � gether, ��h� �glob�� ����work �of ����� ��holar� ���d ��h� ����� � successfu� �bid� for� �ompetitiv� �research �grants, ��otably � community �w��� �hav� �� �gr��� �futur� ��� ��OAS. � � ��roj�� �funded �by ��h� Ar� �� ���d �Hum������� ������rch � Excerpt from: “Jaina Studies.” SOAS: A Celebration in Many Voic- es. General Editor: Catrine Clay. Assistant Editors: Hugh Baker & Charles Tripp, 68-69. London: Third Millennium Publishing. 12 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

THE ANNUAL JAIN LECTURES JAINA STUDIES WORKSHOPS 1999-2008 1999-2009

2nd �November �1999 Current Trends in Jaina Research (1999) William ��ohnson, �Cardiff �University Knowledge and practice in the Jaina traditions Jain History and Culture (2000)

18th May 2000 The Life and Work of Śrīmad Rājacandra (2000) Pau� �Dundas, �Edinburgh �University The non-Jain Jain: A late medieval controversy Aspects of Jainism (2001)

14th March 2001 Text and Context in Jainism (2003) Joh� �E. �Cort, �Deniso� �University A fifteenth century Digambara mystic and his con- Jaina Doctrines and Dialogues (2004) temporary followers: Tāraṇ Taraṇ Svāmī and the Tāraṇ Svāmī Panth Jaina Law and the Jaina Community (2005)

16th March 2004 Jainism and Society (2006) N����� �Balbir, ��orbonne-Paris Thoughts on the meaning and the role of the Jainism and Modernity (2007) Śvetāmbara Canon in the Jaina Art & Architecture (2008) 17th March 2005 Phy���� Gr� anoff, Y� ��� �University Forthcoming: Protecting the faith: Exploring the concerns of Jain monastic rules Jaina Scriptures and Philosophy (2009) 23rd March 2006 Joh����� �Bronkhorst, �University �of �Lausanne Jainism, window on early India

23rd March 2007 Lawr��� A.� �Babb, Amh� er�� �College Jainism and the culture of trade

6th March 2008 Maru�� �Nand�� T� ivari, �Banar�� H� indu �University A new approach to the study of Jaina art and archi- tecture

A����� �of �������m �(2001)

Jainism ���d ��ociety �(2006)

13 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

Conference Report 2007: Jainism and Modernity

Olle Qvarnström ______ainism and Modernity, � �h� � 9th � ����rnatio��� � Jaina Studies Workshop �� ��OA� w� �� fu� nded by� ��h� C� entr� � forJ ������ ���ud��� ���d �Lund �University, ��wo �key �mem- bers of the European Initiative for Cooperation on Jain Studies. � Individu�� � member� � of � �h� � ���� �ommunity, � who ����w � ish ��o r� em��� ���onymous, �ontributed ���w � ell. � Th� ��hem� �of ��h� �workshop, Jainism and Modernity, ���- tracted ��holar� �from �Europe, �India, ������ ���d ��h� �USA � with �� �broad ��rray �of �����rests, �ranging �from �ritu�� ���r- formance, ��og� ���d �mathem���� ��o ����ronomy ���d ���w. � � It thus demonstrated the necessity felt by the scholarly Glenn Ratcliffe community to relate Jain doctrine and practice to mo- dernity �by �opening �u� ���w ��venu�� �of �research �with�� � differ��� ���dem� �disciplines. Th� �� �year, ��h� �organizer� ����o �had ��h� �gr��� ��rivileg� � of �welcoming �� �mo�� �distinguished ��holar �of �������m, � Professor �Lawr��� �A. �Babb �of �Amher�� �College, �who � tex� � ��d � ���ustratio�� � of � �h� � ���� � Mahāmastakābhiṣeka. � delivered ��h� �Annu�� ����� �Lectur� ��������d �Jainism and Having ���joyed ��h�� ��ou�� �o� �Digambar� ����� �ritual- the Culture of Trade. �I� �h�� ����rned ���d ����ovativ� ���- ism � �� � Śravaṇabeḷagoḷa, � Mar�� � h� etelich � (University � ture, � h� � �xplored � �h� � relationsh�� � betw��� � �onomics, � of �Leipzig) ��resented �her ���vestigatio� ����o ��h� ��rchiv� � religio� � ��d � �o��� � valu�� � with�� � �h� � ���� �ommunity � of � �oh����� � Hertel, � �ocated � �� � Leipzig � University � ��d � of �����ur �by �������g ��h� ���ory �of ��h� ��merald ��rade, ��h� � containing inter alia � �h� � orrespond��� � with � ����� � ��� foundatio� �of �����ur’� �renowned �����dary ���dustry, ���d � Benar�� ���d �Patan, ���d ���� �relev��� �for ��h� �history �of � how ��� �becam� �����rtwined �with ��h� ���v�� �of ��h� ������ �of � Jainology. ���� �Fujinag� �(Myakonojo �University, ������) � Jaipur. � � subsequently ��rovided ��h� ���r�������� ��� ��h� �worksho� � Th� �worksho� �o� ��h� ���x� �day �did ��o� �beg�� �with �� � with �� �usefu� �repor� �o� ��h� �urr��� ������ �of �research �o� � discussio� of� ��h� �o���� of� �����mod � ernism, �� ��o�� ��h�� � Jainism ��� ������ ���d ���� ��hr�� ��hases, ���h b� eing ���rongly � Peter F� lüg�� (� SOAS) ���h � �� �����r w� ith ��h� ���m� ������ ��d- affected by� ��h� ��o��� �onditio�� ��� ������ ���d I� ndia. Th� � � dressed �by �outlining ��h� �b��� �featur�� ���d ��re-history � remaining �����r� �revolved ��round ��wo ��hemes: ������ � of ����� �modernism ��� �w��� ��� ���vestigating �“modernist” � and �religion, ���d, �moder� ��onom�� ���d �religion. �An- (self-) �onstructio�� �of ����� �history, �doctr��� ���d ��den- upam �����(Ho � lkar �������Co � llege, I� ndore) ���d Pr� abh� � tity. �Instead, ���� ���rticipants, ����uding ��holars, �mem- ���� (Pr� aj�� Pr� akarsh� ���miti), ho� lding ��u � niqu� �ompe- ber� of� ��h� ����� �ommunity ���w � ��� ��� ��h� g� ener�� ��ublic, � ���� ��� �both ����� �religio� ���d �mathematics, ����borated � wer� �ordially �welcomed �by ��h� �god �of �god� �– �Indr� �- � upon the Jain contribution to modern mathematics and joyfully d� ancing ���d w� ith h� �� ���gh� ��rm� ���viting ��h� ���- the Jain contributions to set theory and its application sembled ��������rs. Th� � fr� esco ��������g of� I� ndra, d� epicted � �� � ���� �og��� � ��d � ������molog��� � ��xts, � respectively. � o� ��h� ������g �of ��h� �Indr� ���bhā ��v� ��� �Ellora, �wel- Th��� �����r� w� er� fo� llowed by� �� ����ur� by� K� im P� lofker � coming god� s, hum� ��� ���d ����m��� ��o ��h� samavasaraṇa� , � (Brow� �University) �o� ��h� ����k� �betw��� �����kr�� ���d � w�� ��how� �by �O��� �Qvarnström �(University �of �Lund) ��� � Muslim � ����� � �� � ���ronom��� � works. � I� � her � ����r � �� � ���roductio� � �o � h�� � ��d � N���� � Hammer’� � �roj�� � o� � sh� ��rgued ��hat, �ompared ��o ���� �Hindu-majority �oun- th� ����� ��v� ��������g� ��� �Ellora. �Th�� ��ub-them� �of ��h� � terpart, ��h� ������ �������fi ��raditio� �w�� ��� ��om� �way� � worksho� �w�� �ontinued �by �Ly�� �Foulsto� �(University � mor� � receptiv� � �o, � ��d � ��multaneously � mor� � ���ulated � of �Wales, �Newport) �who �����ghtened ��h� ��ud���� �with � from, ��h� ���w ���d �foreig� ��d��� �of ���rly �moder� �Indo-

14 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

Islam� ������. Af� ter ��h�� ��onard�� �Ganer� �(University � th� ho� norary gu� est, Bh� aṭṭārak� Cārukīr� ti, ���ucidating ��h� � of �Liverpool) �delivered �� �fascinating �����r �o� ��h� �17th � Mahāmastakābhiṣek� ���d v� ariou� ����v����� ��� ��h� M� aṭh� � century ������ ��hilosopher Y� aśovijay� G� aṇ� ���d ��h� �hal- of M� ūḍabiḍrī, m� ad� ��h� A� nnu�� ������ ���ud��� Work� sho� � leng�� ��h�� �h� �faced �du� ��o ��h� ���ounter �betw��� ��ra- �� ��OA� �o�� ��g��� �� �mo�� ���joyab�� ���d �����ghtening � ditio��� � ����kr�� � discour�� � ��d � �h� � ��������u�� � world � event. �A� �ustomary, ��h� �worksho� ��osed �with �� �reci- of ��h� �Mugh�� �Empire. �Ganer� �based �h�� �����rpretatio� � tation of the Pañca Namaskāra performed by of � Yaśovijaya’� � work � o� � Nelso� � Goodman’� � �heories. � Samaṇī �Prasannaprajñā. Th�� w� �� fo� llowed by� ���yandr� ��o�� (U� niversity of� M� ar- burg), � who � recently � o-translated � Walter � �hubring’� � Worte Mahāvīras ����o �English, �reminding �u� �of ��h� �f�� � th�� ����� ��hilosophy ��o� o� nly d� eriv�� from� ��h� ����hing� � and ��r���� �of �Mahāvīra, �bu� �h�� �relev��� ��v�� ��oday. � Manish� ����h� (� Jaim�� M� ����� I� slamica, N� ew D� elhi), ���d � Sig�� K� ird� (U� niversity of� Bo� nn) d� ���� ��� ��heir ��resenta-

tio�� �with �“possession” ��� ���g�� ���d ���h��� ������ ���rms, � Glenn Ratcliffe respectively. � Th� �ord��� word� � of� w� elcom� by� Prof� essor P� au� W� e- bley, �Director �of ��OAS, ���d ��h� ������ring �remark� �from � Glenn Ratcliffe Glenn Ratcliffe Glenn Ratcliffe

15 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

Jaina Studies at the American Academy of Religion Conference

Anne Vallely ______

���� ���ud��� �w�� ��h� �focu� �of ��wo ���dem� ������� ��� � th� �2007 Am� er��� A� cademy �of �����gio� �(AAR) �on- fJer��� �held ��� �November ��� ���� �Diego. �Th� �‘Religio� � �� ��outh �Asia’ �����o� �of ��h� �AA� �had �� ������ �devoted � specifically ��o ������ ���udies. �I� �featured �����r� �from ���m � Hastings, �Whitney �Kelting, ��herry �Fohr, �����h�� �Quin- ��� ���d A� ��� V� allely. Th� � ������, �organized �by A� ��� V� al- lely, ���d ��������d: ‘Tr� anscending Du� ������� ���d D� ialectics: � Capturing Jain Identities’ challenged the dualistic con- ceptu�� �framework ��h�� �h�� ��rofoundly ���fluenced �mo�� � scholarly � work� � o� � ������m � �� �h� � moder� � r�� iod. �Th� � per������� ��holarly b� ��� ��oward ���ud��� of� ����� ��������m � has had the effect of setting renunciation up as something sharply d� elineated from� ���y ���fe, ���d h� ighly ��diosyncratic. � Th� ��mpetu� �motivating ��h� ������ �w�� ��h� �desir� ��o ��x- plor� ��ho�� ��ractices, �������utio�� ���d �discour��� ��h�� ���- ther completely transcend the renouncer/householder di- Kaleidosco�� v� iew �of � �Mahatm� �Gandh� �����u� ��� ��h� �Ferry �Building chotomy �or ��h�� ����ot, �withou� �onsiderab�� �difficulty, � �� ���� �Francisco, �California. � �Image: ������ �Leigh �Foster b� �reduced ��o ���. �Th� ������r ��� m�� portant: ��h� �dichotomy � betw��� � being � “in” � ��d � “ou� � of” �h � � � world � rem���� � � and in so doing establishes that life as a purposeful and very ��owerfu� �rhetor��� ��oo� �with�� �������m, ���d ��h� �of- exemplary o� ne. I� �� ��bility ��o ��rovid� ���f� w� ith �� ������fied � ��� ���byrinth��� ��ffor�� ��o �mak� ���� ��hing� �fi� ��h� �binary � telo� �may �mak� ��� �mor� ��mpor���� �vow �for �householder� � mod� ���b � � ��f � ascinating �����gh� ����o �� �ultur�� u� niver�� � th�� �for ������� �who�� �����r� ���v�� �wer� �oriented ���ong � largely �onstructed ��round �dualism. Th� � ������ ���� �u� ��h� � the mokṣa mārga. � classificatory �householder/renouncer �dyad ��� ���� ����r�� � The Digambara Jain bhaṭṭāraka system is perhaps problematic, ���d ��osed ��h� �questio� �of �whether �or ��o� ��� � th� � b��� � �xam��� � of � � � ���� � ������utio� � which � defi�� � bi- �� ��� ��xhaustiv� �or ��v�� ���rticularly �����ructiv� �frame- nary ����gorizatio� ��� ���� �very �raison d’être ��� ��o ���rv� � work �for �understanding ��h� ���ved ��r����� �of ������. � �� �����rmediary ro� �� b� etw��� ��h�� of� hou� seholder ���d ���- Th� �����r by� �����h�� Qu� ����� (U� niversity of� O� ttawa) � cetic. �Wh��� �bhaṭṭārakas �do ���k� �vow� �of ����bacy ���d � took ��h� ub� iquitou� ����ur� of� ����rology w� ith�� �������m ��� � non-possession, ��hey �m������� �other ����ribu��� ��oser ��o � ��� ����rting ��oint, ���d ��xplored ��h� ���milar����� ���d �dif- tho�� � of � �rosperou� � householders. � Unlik� � Digambar� � fer���� � �� �h� � way� � �� � which � har�� � of � horoscopy �r � � � ascetics, ��hey ��r� ��othed, ��� ��rav�� ��� �vehicles, �do ��o� � employed �mo � ng � ��y � ��d � renouncer � �����. � Inter��� � �� � wander, ���d ��bov� ���� �of��� �ontro� ���ormou� ������� ���d � jyotiṣ-śāstra �(astrology) ��� �omnipr����� �with�� �������m, � larg� ��mou��� �of ��roperty. �Yet, ���k� �Digambar� �������, � and m� ak�� ��rrelev��� ��h� r� enouncer/householder �����u� of� � bhaṭṭārakas ��r� �w��� �versed ��� ����� �������d ��� �giv� ����r- ��� ����kers. �Th� ��mpor���� �of ����rology ��� �w��� �know� � itu�� �����ructio� ��o ���y ��dherents. �Their �betwixt-and-be- among ���y �ommu������ �who �onsu�� ����rolog��� �har�� � tw��� �����u� �w�� ��h� �focu� �of �� �fascinating �����r �by ���m � befor� ��������g �o� �marriag� ���rtners, �wedding �dates, �or � Hasting� �(University �of �North �Carolina). � bu������ � ��deavour� � ��. � Bu� � �������o� � �o � ���rology � �� � M. � Whitney � Kelting � (Northeaster� � University) � �x- pursued � with �o  nsiderab�� � vigor � �mong � �h� � mend���� � amined ��h� ��r���� �of �women’� � ��� �� �ommonly � community ���w � ell. � shared � body-pr���� � ��d � discour�� � �mong � ��y � ��d � re- Th� �ritu�� �of ����f-mortification, �know� ��� �sallekhanā, � nouncer �women. ����� �wom�� �understand ��heir ���� �- ���- �� ��� �������utio� ��h�� �u�� ��ro�� ��h� ���y-����� �divid� ��� � pecially ��ho�� ����ociated �with ��h� ���rform��� �of �f���� � interesting � ways. �A� � �h� � ultimate, � ��d � ���mingly � mo�� � - ��� �onstitutiv� �of ��heir �futur� �bodies. ����� �karm� ��heory � radical, ��xpressio� of� wor� ld r� enunciation, ��� ��� �ommonly � po���� � � dir�� � ��d � mater��� � relationsh�� � betw��� � one'� � assumed �o � � b� � �h� � �xclusiv� � �rov��� � of � �h� � renounc- ��� ���d ��h� �materializatio� �of �one'� �body. �Kelting �dem- ers. � And � yet, � �roportionally, � sallekhanā is undertaken onstrated ��h�� ��h�� �������� �of ��h� ���rformativ� ����ur� � at least as regularly among lay Jains as it is among the of ��h� �body ��mong ������ ����ow� �u� ��o ��xam��� ��h� �way� � renouncers. A� ��� �Vallely’� �����r �(University �of �Ottawa) � th�� � ���� � wom�� � ��go����� � �h� � ���mingly � ontradictory � argued ��h�� ��h� �vow �of �sallekhanā ��� �b� �viewed ��� ��� � discour��� �of �wife-hood ���d ��un-hood ����o �bod��� �on- end-of-lif� ���rategy ��h�� ��� ��rovid� ���rrativ� �oher��� � stitutiv� �of �both. �Fasting ��� ��� ��xemplary ��r���� �for ���� � and ���ou� ��osur� o� � �� ���fe. A� � ��vow � ��h�� ���b � � ��dopted � ���� �wom�� ���d �o�� ��h�� ����ow� ���dividu��� ��o ���go����� � year� �befor� �one’� �death, ��� ��� �of��� �undertak�� ��o ���g��� � th� ��hifting ���rr��� �betw��� ��h�� of� �wif� ���d �renouncer. � � gr� adu�� w� ithdraw�� from� wor� ldly �����hment. H� ailed ��� � Finally, � �herry � Fohr � (Conver�� � College) � �xplored � � �hero� ���, ��� ���rv�� ��� �� ������mony �of ��h� �virtuou� ���f� � how, ��� �������m, ��h� ���rm satī� , v� irtuou� wom� an, h� �� �om� �

16 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

to r� efer ��o bo� th f� aithfu� w� iv�� ���d f� em��� r� enouncers, ���d � how � both �r � � � �h� � hero���� � of � �h� � ���� � satī-narratives. � Mo�� �of ��h��� ���or��� ��r� ��bou� �married �wom�� �who �re- m��� �faithfu� ��o ��heir �husband� ���d ��ventually �renou�� � th� �world ��o �becom� ��uns. �Wh��� �Śvetāmbar� ���d �Dig- ambar� ��uns' �����rpretatio�� �of ��h��� ���rrativ�� ��mpha- siz� ��h��� �satīs' �mar���� �fidelity ��� �wiv�� ��bov� ���� �����, � they � ���o � underscor� � �h� � onnectio� � �o � �h� � �uns' � ow� � pr���� �of ����bacy. �Th� �d������ �betw��� �householder � and r� enouncer w� ith�� �������m ��� ��upplanted by� �ontinuity � with�� ��h��� ���rrativ�� ��bou� �wom�� ���d ��uns' �����rpre- tatio�� of� ��hem. � I� ��dditio� ��o ��h� �����gio� of� ��outh A� ��� ������d � evoted � Supporting to �������m, ��h� AA� R’� �‘Sacred ����� ���A � sia’ ������ ����o � Jaina Studies at SOAS featured � � � ����r � o� � ������m, � by �A��� �Vallely. � Entitled � ‘Sacred �����, ���red �Ab���� ���d ��h� �Birth �of �God’, � it argued that an understanding of sacred space in Jain- Jaina Studies at SOAS aims to promote under- ism �requir�� �u� ��o ���� ����� ��� ���multaneously ���rilou� � standing of� �������m wor� ldwide. Th� � C� entr� of� ������ � and ��ropitious, ���d �for ��� �understanding �of ���red���� � Studies at SOAS is the only one of its kind outside rooted ��� ��h� ��d�� of� ��� b�� sence, r� ather ��h�� ��resence; ��� � India, ���d ��rovid�� �vitally ��mpor���� �research ���d � ab���� ��h�� �deno��� r� ������ �from �worldly ��xistence. � teaching ��� �������m ���d ��h� ����� ��radition. ��uppor� � I� �r���� �years, ��h� �field �of ����� ���ud��� �h�� �becom� � �� ���������� ��o ����ur� ��h�� ��h� ����v����� �of ��h� �Cen- gradually � mor� � visib�� � �� �h� � �rofessio��� � onfer���� � tr� �ontinue. �Withou� ���onsorsh�� ��� �would �b� ��m- for ��h� ���udy �of �religio� ��� �North �America. �I� ��� �only � possib�� ��o ��u����� ��h� r� ang� of� ���� ��ub�� ����v����� � b� �hoped ��h�� ��h�� ��rend �ontinues, ���d ��h�� �� ���rm����� � and ��o �mak� ��hem �freely ��vailab�� ��o ��veryone. forum for the presentation of academic studies on Jain- ism �w��� �b� �����blished ��� ��h� Am� er��� A� cademy �of ���- If �you �would ���k� ��o �b� ���volved ��� u�� pporting ��h� � ligion. activ����� �of ��h� �Centre, �you ��� �ontribu�� �v�� ��h� � Centre’� w� ebsite: www.� soas.ac.uk/jainastudies. A� � � SOA� ��� ��r � egistered �harity, w� � ���m � ak� your� do� - Anne Vallely is assistant professor in the Department of natio�� �go �further ��hrough ��h� �Gif� A� id ��heme. � Religious Studies at the University of Ottawa. Her re- search interests fall within the Anthropology of Religion, A �ommitm��� ��o ��� ����u�� �ontributio� �or �one- and focus on the Jain religious and cultural tradition in off �donatio�� �w��� �ontribu�� ��oward� ��h� �running � India, as well as on the transnational Jain community co��� ���d ��rogramm�� �of ��h� �Centre, ���d ����ur� � outside of India. th� � work � of � �h� � Centr� � of � ����� � ��ud��� �o  ntin- u�� ��o ��hriv� ��� ��OAS. �Friend� �who ��uppor� ������ � Stud��� � �� �OA� � �� �h�� � way � receiv� � �h� � ���u�� � Centr� �of ������ ���ud��� �Newsletter ���d �u� ��o �d��� � informatio� ��hrough ��h� �E-m��� �L���� �of ��h� �Cen- tre. �Th� ���m�� �of ���onsors, �or ���m�� �of ��ho�� ��� � who�� m� emory ��heir g� if� ���m � ade, ��r� ��ublished o� � � th� �Web���� �of ��h� �Centre. ���onsor� ��r� ��utomati- cally ��������d ��o ���r������� ��� ���� ��v���� �organised � by ��h� �Centre, ���d �w��� �receiv� ��� ���vitatio� ��o �� � ������ ����u�� �recognitio� ��vent. �

Please Contact:

Centre of Jaina Studies [email protected] http://www.soas.ac.uk/jainastudies Ingrid Schoon

17 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

Jaina Relic Stūpas

Peter Flügel ______� ��� �� �ommo� ����reoty�� �of ���xtbook� �o� �world �reli- gio�� ��h�� ������ ���ver �worshipped ��h� �rem���� �of ��h� � JinasI , ���d �onsequently ���ver �developed �� �ritu�� �ultur� � par����� � �o � �h� � u�� � of � r���� � �� � Buddhism. � I� � h�� � well- Fig.1 � know� ���udy �The Jaina Path of Purification, �P. ��. ������ � Entombment of the (1979: �193) �r����� ��h�� �����her �“th� �Śrāvakācāras [the asthi kalaśa, or bone v����� of� �ĀcāryaTulsī, mediev�� ���x�� �outlining ��h� �ru��� �of �ondu� �for ��h� ����� � Ācāry� Tu� lsī �Śak�� � laity] ��or ��h� ��r����� of� �������m g� iv� ���y ���dicatio� ��h�� � Pīṭh, �G � aṅgāśahar 21 April 2000 � �u�� �of �relic-worsh�� �o�� �flourished �with�� ��h� ��radi- tion. � No � stūpas housing the remains of Jaina teachers hav� � y�� � b��� � discovered.” �Apar� � from � ��olated � myth� � and � ��gend� � �� � ��o���� � ��d � mediev�� � ���� � ����rature, � depicting ��h� �veneratio� �of ��h� �r���� �of ��h� �tīrthaṅkaras traditions. �(Fig. �7) �Hence, ��h� �������� �hypoth���� ��h�� ��h� � by ��h� �gods, ��her� ��� ��o ���dicatio� �of �bo�� �r��� �worsh�� � contemporary Jain cult of bone relics functions either �� ���rly ���d �mediev�� �������m ��o �date. Th� �� �repor� �giv�� � �� ��ubstitu�� �or ��� �� ��rototy�� �for ��mage-worsh�� �had ��o � � �brief �overview �of �recent, ��omewh�� �unexpected, �find- b� ��mended. �Moder� ����� �r��� ��hr���� ��r� ��vidently ��o� � ing� o� � ��h� ��hriving �u�� of� bo� �� r� ��� stūpas� and the ritual only constructed in aniconic Jain traditions as functional role of the materiality of the dead amongst contemporary equiv������ �of ���mples. �I� ����o ��merged ��h�� ��h� ����� �u�� � Jains. �Although � ������� � ���� � doctr��� � rej��� � �h� � wor- of r� ���� ��� ��o� o� nly ��f � eatur� of� ���y r� eligiosity, bu� � u� sually � sh�� �of �mater��� �objects, �����rm������ �fieldwork ��� �India, � deliberately fostered by seeking to perpetu- betw��� � 1997-2004, � o� � �h� � hitherto � unstudied � urr��� � ��� ��h� ���flu��� �of ��heir �deceased ����her� ��hrough ��h� � Jain mortuary rituals furnished � ���r � �vid��� � for �h � � � construction of stūpas and the distribution of ashes from ubiquity �of �bo�� �r��� �stūpas ���d �r��� �veneratio� ��ro�� � th� �funer�� ��yr� ���d �other �memorabilia. � the Jain sectarian spectrum. British A� cademy fu� nded r� e- Attitud�� ��oward �r��� �worsh�� �(particularly �bo�� �rel- search ���2000-2001 � ��roduced ��h� fir� �� do� cumentatio� of� � ics) �vary ��ro�� ��ub-���� ���d �betw��� ���dividuals. �Mo�� � two �moder� ����� �bo�� �r��� �stūpas, �� �samādhi-mandira ����� � �r� �w � ar� � of � �h� � doctr���� � view � �h�� � �h� � o���� � and a smāraka, �onstructed by� ��h� T� erāpanth Śv� etāmbar� � with � r���� � do�� � �o� � ontribu�� � �o � ���ritu�� �ur � ificatio� � Jains. �(Figs. �1-2) or ���beration, �bu� ��� �b��� ��o ��h� ��quisitio� �of ��upernatu- Subsequ��� �fieldwork �demonstrated ��h�� �r��� �stūpas r�� ��ower �(P. �iḍḍhi, ��. �ṛddhi). �Ev�� ��h�� ��� ��� ���ocryph�� � ar� ��o� o� nly ��f � eatur� of� ��h� ����o�� ����� ��raditio�� (F� igs. � interpretation. ����� �, ����hough �widely ���d �of��� � 3-4), �bu� ����o �of �Mūrtipūjak� �(Figs.5-6) ���d �Digambar� � publicly ��racticed, �do�� ��o� �featur� ��rominently ��� ����� � discour�� � ��d � offi��� � ���f-representations. � I� � rem���� � � cland������ ��ractice. Y� et, ����� �r��� �stūpas are not hidden  ��� �Leum��� �1885: �500-504; �Bühler �1890: �328f.; ��mith �1901; � Schubring �1935/2000 �§ �25; �Marsh��� �1951 �II: �463; ��hah �1955: �54ff.; � from ��ub�� v� iew. Th� � �onstructio� of� samādhi-mandiras� Shāntā �1985: �127ff.; ����� �1987: �136; ������r �1989; � and smārakas for� ��rom����� ������� ��� w�� � idespread ��he- Kasturib�� �& ���o �1995; �Dund�� �2002: �219, �291 ��. �4; �Laugh��� �2003: � nomenon. Num� erou� ����bor��� ���d h� ighly v� isib�� ��hr���� � 200; �Bronkhor�� �2005: �53, �Dund�� �2007: �54. � wer� �recently �onstructed �for ��h� �ommemoratio� �of �de-  Funded �by ��h� �British A� cademy �(SG-31522), ��OA� �(IRP �285), � ceased ����� ������� ���d �for ��mpowerm��� ��hrough �dir�� � and ��h� �Centr�� ������rch �Fund �of ��h� �University �of �Londo� �(REGS/ co���� �with ��heir ���red �remains. � CRF/2002/2003-AR/CRF/A). � Thr�� ��y��� of� �����r��� ������ud�� ��oward� r� elics, m� ani-  ��� �Flüg�� �2001, �2004a, �2004b, ��� ��ress. � f��� ��� �observab�� ��ractices, �wer� �documented. A� ttitud�� � vary ���ong ��h� �dimensio�� �official/unofficial, �ollective/ individual, �body �relic/co���� �relic:

• � �o��� �or �hidd�� �bo�� �r��� �veneratio� � • � �rejectio� �of �bo�� �r��� �, �bu� �veneratio� � � of contact relics • � �rejectio� �of �both �bo�� �r��� ���d �o���� �r��� �wor- � � � � � ��h�� �(with �or �withou� ��h� �distributio� �of ��ouvenirs, � photographs or other memorabilia)

 Of ��h� �fifty-six samādhi-mandiras� and smārakas ���vestigated, � twenty-sev�� ��rtainly �o����� �bo�� r� elics. �N��� �of ��h��� ����� �wer� � identified �by �Dineśmu�� �of ��h� ��īvarāj� Tārā� candr� �Gaṇ� �of ��h� � Sthānakavāsī �Śramaṇasaṅgha, �who �mad� ��h� r� esu��� �of �h�� �ow� ���ves- Fig. �2 � � Entombm��� �of ��h� bo� ��� �of �Ācāry� Tu� lsī �(1914-1997) � � � tigatio� ��vailab�� ��o ��h� ��r����� ��uthor �o� ��h� �26.12.2002 ���Ud � aipur. � � � � � � � �Gaṅgāśahar, 21� A� pr�� �2000 For ���� ������, ���� �Flüg�� �2004a, ��� ��ress. �

18 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

Fig. �4 Upādhyāy� �Puṣkarmuni’� � (1910-1993) �bo�� �r���� � waiting �for ��mtombment, Udaipur, �2004

Fig. �3 � �Ur� �with �bo�� �r���� �of ��h� ���hānakavāsī Pr� avartak� �Marudhar �Keśarī � Mu�� �Miśrīm�� �(1891-1984) �����d� ��h� �‘bo�� �hamber’ �(asthi kakṣa) ��� ��oj�� � �

Fig. �5 Bo�� �r��� �of �Mūrtipūjak � Ācāry� I� ndradinnasūr� � (1923-2002) � Preserved �by �Ācāry� � Virendrasūr� �Delh� � 18 December 2003

Fig. �6 � �Mṛgāvatī ���mādh� �Mandir, ��.T. �Karnā� ��oad, A� līpur, �Dillī �

Th� ��r������ �divisio� ��� �betw��� ����� �(i.e. �mo����� �or- th� ��d�� of� d� iminishing d� egr��� of� ��ubstantiv� �onnected- der� ���d ��heir ���y �followers) �which �routinely ��r�� �r��� � ���� of� ���obj � �� w� ith �� ���rticular ������. Th� � �����r � ang�� � shr���� ��� h�� � ������of � �rematio� of� ���flu������ mo� nk� (r� are- from � body � r���� � (bo��� � ��d � ��hes, � hair � ��d � �����), � �o � ly ��uns), ���d �����wh � ich ��xplicitly r� ej�� ��uch ��ractices. � co���� �r���� �or �r���� �of �u�� �(perso��� ��ossessio�� ��uch � A� �����rmed���� ��ositio� ��� ��ursued by� grou� �� wh� ich ��re- �� ��othes, �"inalienable" �obj��� ��uch ��� �gaddīs, ��ouve- serv� o� nly �o���� r� elics. Or� thodox mo� ����� ord� ers, ��uch � nir� � �uch � �� � ����, � ��.), � ��d � memorab���� � �uch � �� �ho- �� ��h� ��ñāngacch, ��h� �Āṭh �Koṭ� �Nānā �Pakṣa, ���d ��h� ��wo � tographs, � �o � ommemorativ� � 'relics' � (to � u�� � � Buddh��� � Sādhumārgī �branch�� �of ��h� ���hānakavāsī ��radition, �op- term) ��uch ��� �����ues. ������ ��r� ��reated �differently �with � po�� �both ��h� ��reservatio� �of �bo�� �relics, �o���� �relics, � r����� ��o ��heir �quantity, �������bility, �movability, ���d ���- photograph� ���d �other �memorabilia, ���d ��h� ��rectio� �of � dividual/collectiv� ow� nership. Af� ter �remation, bo� �� r� el- commemorativ� ��hr���� or� ���mples, ���form � � of� jaṛ-pūjā� , � �� ��r� g� enerally g� athered ���d ��reserved u� ���� ��h� ���m� of� � or �worsh�� �of ���f����� �objects. �Individu�� �devo���� �may � their ����ombm��� �under ��h� �funer�� �memor��� �(samādhi- neverth����� r� ����� ��oth�� or� o� ther ��hy���� m� emorab���� � mandira). Th� � r� emaining ���h�� o� � ��h� ��yr� ���b � � ���ked � which w� er� ���f� b� ehind by� ��h� ������� ��� ��h� ���m� of� ��heir � u� �by ���yo�� �who �h�� ��� �����r��� ��� ��hem. ��ometim�� �� � dīkṣā. �I� ���rticular ��h� �hair �of �� �renouncer ��h�� ��� ��hav�� � dispu�� ��r���� ��mong�� �follower� �whether ��h� �bo�� �r���� � off at home before the initiation ceremony is often col- should only be buried underneath the funeral memorial lected ���d ��reserved by� f� amily m� embers, or� ��h� �oconu�� � (either ��ow �����form� �or �����form� �with �� ��rotectiv� ���- which ���ophy��� ��ometim�� ��rry ��� ��heir �hand� �befor� � opy-lik� ���ructure), or� fur� ther d� istributed ��o ���ond-order � changing ��heir �dr��� �during ��h� ���������o� ��remony. V� ar- memor���� �(smāraka) ��rected ��� ������ �ho��� �by ���fluen- ying ���dividu�� ������ud�� ��� �b� �found ��ro�� ��h� �����r- ���� �followers. �I� ��uch �� ����, �bo�� �r���� ��r� �divided ���d � ��� �����rum. distributed by the local trustees of a sect according to the Th� ���rceived �hierarchy �of �memorab���� ��� �based �o� � instructio�� �of ��h� �head �of ��h� �mend���� �order. ���ond �

19 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

of � � �ouvenir, � mantra � ��d/or � �mage) � �� � b� � observed. � ����� ���ud��� �of ��h� ��opular �devotio��� �ritu��� �held ��� � dādāguru shrines of the Kharataragaccha and samādhi- mandiras �of ��h� �Tapāgacch� �by ��. �Laidlaw �(1985: �65-7), � L.A. �Babb �(1996: �102f.), ���d ��. �Laugh��� �(2003: �178f.) � demonstrated ��h� ��rev����� �of �worshippers’ �orientatio� � toward� ��h� “m� ag��� ��ower” of� ��h� f� amou� d� eceased ����� � � �who ��r� �rebor� ��� �god� ���d �h��� ���rceived ��o � b� ��ransactionally ��r����� �“mir��� �workers” �who�� �h��� � �� b� � ���voked ��� ��h� ���ylized foo� tpr���� (� caraṇa-pādukā) dedicated ��o ��hem. I� � �ontr��� ��o ���berated b� eings, ��uch ��� � th� ������, who� ��r� ��ransactionally ��b���� ���d wor� shipped � through �reflexiv� �meditativ� ��mulation, ��h� �pūjās to de- ceased �monk� ��r� ��o� �reflexive, ����� �"th� �benefi�� �be- stowed �om� �from ��h� �obj�� �of �worship, ��o� �from ��h� � worshiper h� imself or� h� erself" (B� abb 1996:� 131).� ��om� of� � th� �Dādābāṛī ��hr���� �of ��h� �Kharataragacch� �wer� �bu��� � on the sites of the four dādāgurus, �wh��� �mo�� � Fig. �7 � �Ācāry� �Śāntisāgar� �'Dakṣiṇa' �(1872-1955) of ��h� mor� � ��h�� four� hu� ndred ���d fif� ty ��hr���� d� edicated � Samādh� �Mandir� ���Ku � nthalgirī �which ��� ����d ��o � contain his relics to ��hem ��r� �merely �ommemorativ� ��hrines. �Th� �differ- ��� �betw��� ��h� ��wo ��y��� �of ���red ������ ��� �y�� ��o �b� � order relic shrines often display the urns containing body studied. � r���� o� penly ��� ��urpo�� bu� ��� ���ructures, wh� ��� bo� �� r� ���� � Ther� ��� ������� ��vid��� of� ��x����� �ollectiv� r� ��� wor� - ar� ���way� �buried ��� ��h� ������ �of ��h� �samādhi-mandiras. � sh�� ��� ���y �funer�� �memorial, �only �of �ollectiv� �r���� �of � Apparently �following �Hindu ��ractices, ��ometim�� ���� �or � commemoration on the death day of a deceased saint at parts of the body relics are immersed into one or more th� ��ocatio� �of �h�� �funeral. �However, ��� �� �samādhi-man- river� ��uch ��� h�� � �Gang�� �or ��o�� �rivers. �Through ��heir � dira which ��� ����o �� �r��� �stūpa, �r���� �of �ommemoratio� � disper��� ov� er �� ���rg� r� egion, ���v � ariou� w� ays, body� r� ���� � functio� � ��multaneously � �� � r���� � of � �mpowerm��� � �� � ��� demar��� ��h� ���her� of� ���flu��� of� ��h� ��uccessor� of� ��h� � ����� � four � differ��� � ways: � �hrough � �h� � ����� � qu������� � deceased ���d ��ransform ��� ����o �� ���red �����. � of � �h� � “commemorative” � ritu�� � �����f, � �hrough � �h� � r�� - Bo�� �r���� ��r� ����� ��� ���rticularly �valuab�� �becau�� � ceived ��r����� �of ������� �rebor� ��� �gods, ���d �of ��heir � their �quantity ��� �fi���� �(although �r���� �of �famou� ������� � attend��� �gods, �who ��� �both �h��� ��h� �worshipper �who � tend ��o mu� ltiply ���mo�� m� iraculously). A� shes, by� �ontrast, � invok�� ��hem, ���d �becau�� �of ��h� ��r����� �of ��owerfu� � ar� ��reated �with �much ����� �respect, ����� ��h� ��mou�� ��� � “wish-fulfilling” � relics. � Th� � �o������� � �o������ � �fficacy � b� ��rtificially ���reased �by ��dding �mor� �wood ��h�� ���- of ��h� ���ructur�� ��ower ��mbodied ��� ��h� �ritu�� ���frastruc- essary ��o ��h� �rematio� �fire. ��m��� �qu�������� �of ���h ��r� � tur� ��� r�� edicated �o� ��h��� �motivating �factors. �I� �moder� � frequently d� istributed by� ��h� �������of � mo� �� ����� ����� ��o � India, �bo�� �r��� �stūpas ��r� ��y���� �for ��h� ������. �Ther� � their �devotees, ����her �wrapped ����o �����r, �or ��� h�� � �form � ar� ��o �“Hindu” ��reced���� ���d �����rently ��o �ontempo- of ��m��� ��mu���� �mad� �of �metal. �Ther� ��r� ����o ��mu���� � rary �Buddh��� ���rallels. ����� �bo�� �r��� �worsh�� ����o� � with � bo�� � r���� � ����de, � bu� � �h�� � �� �xceptional. � Of��� � b� �regarded ��� �� �form �of �Hinduization, ����� �“” � their ��vailability ���r � estricted ��o ��h� �������. M� ember� of� � generally �do ��o� �worsh�� �relics. �Buddh��� ���flu��� �h�� � th� ���y �ommunity ��hould ���ver g� �� ho� ld of� ��h� ���rapher- b��� ��� �b��� ���dir�� �o� �ontemporary ������, �who �gener- ����� �of �mendicants. �Hair, ������ �or ��oth�� �of ��� ������ � ally �recogniz� �r��� �worsh�� ��o� ��� �� �“religious” �bu� �only � ar� ���������b�� obj� ��� wh� ich ���r � arely b� � ob� tained. Th� � � �� �� �“social” �or �“socio-religious” ��ractice. �I� �ontr��� ��o � hair of� ��h� ������ ���d h� is/her wor� ldly ��othes, ���f� b� ehind � Buddh��� � form� � of � r��� � worship, � � bo�� � r��� � worsh�� � after � ��������on, � usually � rem��� � with�� �h � � � family. � Th� � among�� ��h� ������r � em���� �� ����destine, ���b��� org� anised, � only o� ther r� ���� of� u� �� ��h�� ���b � � ��quired ��r� ��h� ������ � practice. �Th� �veneratio� �of ��h� �rem���� �of ��h� �deceased � cloth, ���., �which ���ger �devo���� �manag� ��o ����r �off ��h� � ���� � ������ � �� �o� � doctrinally � recognized, � ��d � ��� �xist- dead �body �of ��� ������ �during ��h� �funer�� ��rocession. ��� ��� �of��� ��ublicly �denied. ����� �worsh�� ��� ��� �unof- Th� �differ��� ��y��� �of �r���� ����ropriated ��� ��h�� �way ��r� � ficial, ��omewh�� �hidd�� �dimensio� �of ����� �ritu�� �ulture. � usually �k��� ��� �� ���f� ����� ��� �home. �They ��r� ���rceived � Ev�� ��� ��h� ������ �of �r��� �stūpas, �r���� �of ��mpowerm��� � to � o����� �om � � � of � �h� � miraculou� � (camatkārī) ascetic power� �(śakti) �of ��h� �deceased ��� �rystallised �form, ���d �  Marsh��� (1951� II:� 463-66)� ����ulated ��h�� ��wo u� nmarked �ommemo- rativ� ������� ��� ���rk�� ��� �Tax��� �mu�� �b� ����� �stūpas, ����� ��� ��� �know� � preserved ��� ��uspiciou� obj� ��� ��o ���r���� ��h� h� ealth ���d � th�� �many ������ ���ved ��� �Taxila. �They �mu�� �hav� �b��� �����, �becau�� �of � wealth �of ��h� �member� �of ��h� �household. � th� ��x������ �of ����k� �����rently �for �"ceremo���� ��blutions" �(p. �465). � A � ����rum � of � d�� ividu�� � r���� � of �m � powerm��� � Bu� ���� ��hah �1955: �9f. �Why ��hould ������� ���gag� ��� ��xter��� ��urifica- (through �o���� �with �� �r��� �or �r��� ��hrine) ���d ���divid- tions, �usually ����ociated �with �Hinduism? �Marsh��� �(1951 �II: �465) ��ug- g���� ��h�� �"Th� ����wer ��� ��o �b� �found ��� ��h� �ontaminatio� �which �h�� � u�� ���d �ollectiv� r� ���� of� �ommemoratio� (w� ith ��h� h� ��� � tak�� ����� ��� ��very r� eligio� k� now� ��o u� s, ���d wh� ich ��� ��h� fir� �� ����ury � A.D. �w�� ��ffecting �������m ��� �much ��� ���w � �� ��ffecting �Buddhism". �  Th� �o���� �with ��h� �body �of ��� ������, ��v�� ��h� �dead �body, �offer� �� �  Tambiah �1984, ��ho��� 1997,� ���rong �2004, �Germano �& Tr� ainor � rar� �opportunity �for �� ����� ���yperso� ��o �g�� ��� ��ouch �with �“sacred �matt- 2004, ��mong �others. ter”, �� �o���� wh� ich ��� �otherw��� �rejected �(����� 1985:� �88).

20 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

ar� � only � ��rformed � �urreptitiously, � �� � �� �dditional, � or � scribed in Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa �13.8.1-2, ��r� �generally � im����� d� imensio� of� ��h� r� ���� of� wor� sh�� (� pūjā), hom� ag� � regarded � �� �re-figuratio�� � of � �h� � ����r � Buddh��� � r��� � (śraddhāñjali) �or �ommemoratio� �(smṛtijñāna), ��hrough � stūpas,14 ���d �by ��xtensio� ����o �of ��h� �famou� ����� �stūpa � �variety �of �ritu�� �means, ��uch ��� ��rcumbulation.Y�� ��h� � found ��� �Kaṅkālī �Tī�� ��� �Mathurā.15 �(Fig. �8) �A. �Führer'� � intentio� ���forming �“r���� �of �ommemoration” ��� ����rly � excavatio� �of ��h�� �stūpa ��� �1889-90 �did ��o� �rev��� ���y � distinguished from� ��h� ��������o� ���forming w� ish-fulfilling � r��� � hamber � or � relics, � which � ���med � �o �o  nfirm �h � at, � “mir��� � rites”. �Th� � �rev����� � of � �h�� � �����ud� � ���ur�� � although � ����� �onstructed � “commemorative” �stūpas at th�� ��mong�� ��h� ������ ��v�� ��oday �r���� �of ��mpowerm��� � �� ���rly d� ate, bo� �� r� ��� wor� sh�� w� �� ���ver ��racticed. G.� � rem��� ���ompassed �by �r���� �of ��urification. Bühler �(1890: �328f.) �wrote: �“Th� �worsh�� �of �stūpas �has, � Ther� ��� ��o ����r ����wer �y�� ��o ��h� �questio� �of ��h� ���- �� my� o� pinion, ��o� b� ��� borrow� ed by� ��h� �������from � ��h� � tiquity �of ��h��� ��ractices. �I� �r��� �worsh�� �� ���w �devel- Buddhists. �I� �was, �I ��hink, ��h� �ommo� �hab�� �of �variou� � opm��� ��� h�� � ����� ��radition, �� �moder� ���ocryph�� �- ancient sects to erect funeral monuments in the Stūpa form ��� �of ��r���� �from ��recept? �Or ��� ��� ��� ��deologically � to ��heir �gr��� ����her� �(ju�� ��� ��h� ��o-called �samādhis are devalued bu� � �ommo� ��r���� of� ������(r � ather ��h�� �� ����� � ����� �bu��� ���� �over �Ind�� ��� �honour �of �distinguished �����- practice) go� ing b� ack ��o ��h� ���m� of� ���rly �������m? A� ccord- ics) ���d ��o wor� sh�� ��hem”.16 Büh� ler ��rgued ��h�� ��v�� “� th� � ing ��o �research �onducted �by �Dineśmuni, ��vid��� �for � term or cheia �originally �m���� �'� �funer�� �monu- the construction of bone relic stūpas amongst the Jains m��� ��� �honour �of �� ����her �or ��rophet', ��o� �� ���mple, ��� � �� �b� ��raced �back �for ��� ������ ��hree-hundred �years. �Bu� � �� ��� ��ow �����rpreted” �(ib.); �bu� �did ��o� �discu�� ��h� �dif- th� �ustom ��� ��robably �much �older. �I� �h�� �discussio� �of � fer��� b� etw��� �ommemorativ� stūpas� and relic stūpas. � cano���� ������g�� �o� Ardh� amāgadhī �ceiya �(caitya) and Samādhi-mandiras and nisidhis,17 ��h�� ���, ��m��� ��hr���� � thūbha �(stūpa) �ollected �by �Pisch�� �(1900/1998 �§§ �134, � erected in memory of prominent Jain ascetics at their 208), ��hubring (1935/2000� §� 25:� 49f.)� ���ready ��uspected � places of sallekhanā �or �remation, ��r� ��� ��vid��� �from � th�� ��h� �descriptio� �of ��h� �heavenly �worsh�� �of ��h� �r���� � th� ���rly �mediev�� ���riod �onwards. Y� et, ��o ���dicatio� �of � of ��h� ������ �(P. �jiṇa-sakahā, ��. �sakthin = asthi) by the r��� �worsh�� �w�� ��ver �found ��� ���y �of ��h� ����� ��hrines. � god� ��� h�� � ���o� �“mo�� ��rtainly �follow� ���rthly ��xam- (Excavatio�� ��r� �understandably ��revented �by ��h� �om- ples" ���d ��h�� ��h� ������ �mu�� �hav� �“erected ������� ����� � munity). �P. �Granoff �(1994: �151, ��. �28) ��oted ��h�� ��her� ��� � long”. �H� �remained ��������, �however, ��bou� ��om� �of � "evid��� from� ����riptio�� ��h�� ��r���� mo� nk� w� er� wor� - th� ����her "u� ntenable" or� "� inexplicable" �����rpretatio�� of� � shipped ��fter ��heir �death, ���d ��h�� �stūpas and footprints Jayasw�� �(1918) �of ��h� �famou� �Hāthīgumphā ����riptio� � wer� �ontinuously �dedicated ��o ��h��� �", �y�� �"ther� � of �king �Khārav��� �of �Kaliṅg� ��� �Udayagir� �(Orissa) �of �. � �� ������� ��vid��� ��� ���y �of ��h� �mediev�� �biograph��� ��h�� � 2nd-1�� �Century �B.C.E10 � �which �offer� �wh�� ����m� ��o �b� � th� �rem���� �of ��h� �dead �monk �wer� �worshipped �or ��h�� � th� �fir�� ����graph� ��vid��� �of �bo�� �r��� �stūpa �worsh�� � ther� w� �� �� �u�� of� ���y ��mpor���� of� ��h� stūpa� " (� p. 150).� � � among�� � �h� � �����, � �hough � �o � r��� � hamber � w�� � �xca- J. �Laugh��� �(2003: �200 ��. �523) ����o ��uspected ��h�� ��o�� � vated ��� ��h� �����.11 I� � �����14 � of� ��h� ����ription, ��h� word� � � of ��h��� �monum���� �“wer� �stūpas ��� ��h� �Buddh��� ������, � kāyya-nisīdīya or kāya-nisīdiyāya appear, �which ���yas- containing ��h� �bodily �r���� �of ��h� �monks, �bu� �wer� �mor� � w�� � ��d � Banerj� � (1933: � 89) � �ranslated � �� � “r��� � memo- lik� ���otaphs”. �N. ��hāntā �(1985/1997: �256, ��. �348) �w�� � rial”; ��hough ��h� word� kāya� , �orporeal, �ould ����o r� efer ��o � under � �h� � �mpressio� � �h�� � �h� � “reformed �ommu  nities, � � �building, ��o� �ju�� ��o �� �relic, ��� �r���� ��ointed �out. th� ���hānakavāsī� ���d ��h� �Terāpanthīs, �who ���rform ��o � Although ��h� �worsh�� �of �r���� ��� �unknow� �with�� ��h� � tem��� �worship, �do ��o� �[even] ��r�� samādhi-mandiras� ”. brāhmaṇ��� � �radition,12 the burial of bones and ashes Th�� �hor � � � review � of � �h� � ��xtual, �r � chaeolog��� � ��d � and � �h� � onstructio� � of � bur��� � mound� � wer� � �racticed � anthropological literature on Jain stūpas ���d �r��� �wor- already ��� �Ved� ���m�� �(Ṛg Veda �10.18.11-12, �7.89.1).13 sh�� �demonstr���� ��hat, ��hu� �far, ���dem� ���ud��� �hav� � Th��� �bur��� �mounds, ���������y ��h� �round ���ructur�� �de- concentrated � only � o� � ommemorativ� � ritu��� � ��d � �h� � worsh�� � of � heavenly � gods, � �o� � o� � �opular � r���� � of � �m-  Perso��� �ommunication, �Udaipur �26.12.2002. � powerm��� ��hrough �relics, �which ��r� �officially �derided. �  Th� �ommemorativ� �worsh�� �of �heavenly �r��� stūpas� �(thūbha) Popular Jain relic cults such as collecting hairs or clothes �� �occasionally �mentioned ��� ��h� �Śvetāmbar� ���on, �for �������� ��� � of �������, �dead �or ����ve, �hav� �occasionally �b��� �docu- Rāyapaseṇaijja �vv. �186f., �dated �3rd �Century �B.C.E. �E. �Leum��� �1985: � 500-4 ��oted ��h�� ��h� �de­sriptio� �of ��h� �r��� �of �worship, ���d����� ��h� � 14 Parpo�� �2005: �53-55. precedence of mūrtipūja, ��mage-worship, �over ceiya� thūbha �worship. 15 Smith �1901. Thr� �� �further ��uggested ������ �of �‘����� stūpas� ’, ��� � 10 Sircar �1942: �206-213. Udayagir� �(cf. ���yasw�� �1918), T� ax��� �(Marsh��� �1951), ���d V� adda- manu �(Kasturib�� �& ���o �1995), �revealed ��o ��vid��� �of �r��� �worship. 11 "Th� �Nishīdī ��� h�� � �Kumārī �H��� �(th� �H��� �wher� ��h� ����riptio� ��� � engraved) �w�� ��o� ��� �ornam����� ��omb �bu� �� �r��� ������, �for ��� ��� �quali- 16 �U.P. ��hah �1955: �54 ��rgued ��h�� �"����� �worsh�� �do�� ��o� ����m ��o � fied �kāyya, �orpor��� �(i.e. �'having �rem���� �of ��h� �body'). �Thu� ��� ����m� � hav� � b��� � �o � �opular �mo � ng�� �h � � � ������ � �� �mong�� � �h� � Buddhists, � th�� ��h� ������ �����d ��heir ������� �or �haity�� �Nishīdīs. �Th� ������ ������ � becau�� ��mage-worsh�� ����m� ��o �hav� ����rted ���rlier ��� �������m ��h�� � discovered ���M � athurā ���d ��h� d� atum of� ��h� Bh� adra-bāhu-char��� ���ying � �� � Buddhism" � d�� � becau�� � "th� � �opularity � of � representatio�� � of � th�� ��h� �d������� �of �Bhadrabāhu �worshipped ��h� �bo��� �of ��heir �Master, � Samavasaraṇ� � [th� � ����mbly � of � �h� � four-fold � ���� �ommunity] � ulti- establish ��h� �f�� ��h�� ��h� ������� �(�� ���y �r��� ��h� �) �observed � mately r� eplaced ��h� ������-symbolism ��� ������wor � ship" (� p. 57).� ��. ����� � the practice of erecting monuments on the remains of their 1987: �136f. ��roposed ��h�� ����� �stūpa �worsh�� ��merged �under ��h� ���flu- teacher� �... �.” �(Jayasw�� �1918: �338f.). � ��� �of �Buddhism, �bu� �w�� �onfined ��o ��h� ���riod �betw��� ��h� ���ond � and �fifth ����ury �B.C.E. �With ��h� ��u��� �of ��h� ����� �onstructio� �of � 12 ����� �1979: �298, ��. �39. memorials such as stūpas, �caraṇa caukīs, �caitya , �māna st-

ambhas ���d ����� ���mples, ��h� Buddh� ��� ��raditio� ��o�� ���� ���fluence. Af� ter � 13 ���rong �2004: �15 ����o ��o���� ��o ��h� �har��� �houses, �or eḍūka� �(elūka, � ��� �demise, ��h� ������ �gav� ��h� �onstructio� �of stūpas� u� �(p. �140). � � � aiḍūka), �mentioned ��� ��he Mahābhārata. � 17 P. �ṇisīhiyā, ��. �niṣidhi, niṣīdhi, niṣīdhikā. 21 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

References:

Babb, �Lawr��� A.� Absent� Lord: Ascetics and Kings in a Jain Ritual Culture. �Berkeley: �University �of �Cali for��� Pr� ess, �1996.

Bronkhorst, ��ohannes. �"L�� �reliqu�� �d��� ���� � religio�� �d� ��'Inde." Indische� Kultur im Kontext: Rituale, Texte und Ideen aus Indien und der Welt. Festschrift für Klaus Mylius. �Herausgegeb�� �vo� � Lar� �Göhler, �49-85. W� iesbaden: �Harrassowitz, �2005.

Bühler, �Georg. �"Further �� �for ��h� Au� thenticity � of ��h� ������Tr � adition." Vienna� Oriental Journal 4 (1890) �313-331.

Ash�� ���d �bo��� �of �Ācāry� Tu� lsī, ��reserved �by �� �family � �� �Gaṅgāśahar �15 �December �2002 � Dundas, �Paul. �The Jains. ���ond ���vised �Edition. � London: ��outledge, �2002. mented in the footnotes of the sparse ethnographic litera- tur� �o� ��h� ������. �However, ��hey �wer� ���rgely �dismissed � Dundas, �Paul. �History, Scripture and Controversy in a �� “� non-Jain” �form � � of� “h� induization”. P.� Gr� anoff (1992:� � Medieval Jain Sect. �London: ��outledge, �2007 � 194) �by �ontr��� ��rgued ��h�� �“��� �worsh�� ��� �������m ��� ��� � (Routledg� Adv� ���� ��� ������ ���ud��� Vo� l. �2). centers around images and temples is in some essential way �worsh�� �of ��h� �dead”, ��� �way� �“rem������� ��o �on- Flügel, �Peter. �"���� �Mortuary ������ ���d ��h� Prob� lem � temporary �Hinduism”. �L.A. �Babb �(1996: �103) ������d � of the Jain stūpa." �Report: British Academy Research th� � functio������ � view � �h�� � �v�� � �h� � “commemorative” � Grant SG-31522. �London, �6.4.2001 worsh�� �of ��h� �Tīrthaṅkar�� ��� �“� ���rticular �kind �of �mor- tuary �ult”, �rather ��h�� ��� �“enactm��� �of ��oteriolog��� � Flügel, �Peter. �"����� ���d ��h� �Cu�� �of Amu� ���� � ” ��� ��mphasised by� ��h� ��raditio� ������f. I� � �������m ��� � among�� ��h� ���hānakavāsī ������ ��� �Northw��� �India." � � ���ved r� eligio� �����������y ��mor � tuary �ult, �� �u�� of� � � � Report: Central Research Fund Grant AR/CRF/A. � and �������? �Qu��� ��h� �oppo���� ����m� ��o �b� ��h� ����. ����� � University �of �London, �28.1.2004 ��. doctr��� � �o���� � �oward� � �h� � �mancipatio� � from � ����h- ment. � Th� � dom����� � form� � of � ritu�� � �r���� � �r� � routi- Flügel, �Peter. �"Cland������ ����uals: ������ ����� � nised �form� �of �religion, �unequivocally �oriented ��oward� � Worsh�� ���d ��h� �Cultur�� U� nconscious." Ritual� th� ��r������� �of �������m, �rather ��h�� �� u� �� �of �funer�� �of- Practices in Indian Religions and Contexts, � fering� ��o �harism��� ���rsonalities. Ev� �� ��h� ���otroph�� � Keyno�� L� ecture, �Lund �University, �10.12.2004 �b. ���� �u�� �of �relics, ��mphasizing ��hy���� �onnectio� �with � particular ���dividu��� r� ather ��h�� ��ymbo�� ������ration, ��� � Flügel, �Peter. �"Th� �Power �of �Death: �����Wor � sh�� � qu��� ��bstract. E� ssentially ��� ��� form�� � of� wor� sh�� w� ithou� � among�� ��h� �������." � and Power in South ritual. �Th� �only �requirem��� ��� ��h� �o-pr����� �of �r��� � and Southeast Asia. �Ed. �P. �Flüg�� �& �G. �Houtman. and � worshipper. � I� �h � � � ����rature, � �h� � ontr��� � betw��� � �London: ��outledg� �(Roy�� �A � ����� ��ociety ���ries) � Brāhmaṇ��� r� itu�� m� aterialism ���d ����� ��ymbo�� u� nder- (�� ��ress). standing� of� obj� ��� of� wor� sh�� ���of � ��� ��mphasized. Y� et, � �� ��ractice, ��her� ��� �only �� �fi�� ����� �betw��� �venerating � Germano, � �& �Kev�� Tr� ainor �(eds.) Embodying� the �� �obj�� ��� �� �onventio��� ��ymbo� �or ��� ��omething �of � Dharma: Buddhist Relic Veneration in Asia. A� lbany: � intr���� �value. ��.J. �Tambiah �(1984: �203, �335) �w�� �o�� � ����� �University �of �New York� �Press, �2004. of ��h� �fir�� ��o ��mphasiz� ��h�� ��h� ��r����� �valu� �of �rel- ics, ��� �� �Buddh��� �ontext, ��� ��heir �functio� ��� �“magical” � Granoff, �Phyllis. �"Worsh�� ��� �Commemoration: � repositor��� �of ����ritu�� �“power”, �rather ��h�� �“symbolic” � Pilgrimage, �Death ���d �Dying ��� �Mediev�� �������m." reminder� for� �ommemorativ� wor� ship. Wh� �� ��xactly ��h� � Bulletin D'Études Indiennes �10 �(1992) �181-202. word� �“magic” ���d �"power" �desig���� � ��� ��h�� �ontex� ��� � �� �o��� �question. �Th� �ro�� �of ��h� ���rceived ���ving ��res- Granoff, �Phyllis. �"Biograph��� Wr� iting� Amo� ng�� � ence, or� �rystallised ��ower of� ����� ������� ���r � elics, ��hr���� � th� �Śvetāmbar� ������ ��� �Northwester� �India." � and amulets and the relationship of relics and images in According to Tradition. Hagiographic Writing in contemporary Jain religious culture is yet to be studied India. �Ed. W.M.� �Callewaer� �& ��. ������, �131-158. � from � � �omparativ� � ��rspective. � How � �r� � r���� � wor- Wiesbaden: �Harrassowitz V� erlag, �1994. shipped by� ��h� ������? A� ��henomenology of� ��h� �����r � itu�� � exper���� of� ��h� �������d � ead ���d of� ��h� ������ud�� ��oward � their �rem���� ��rom���� �����gh�� �of �wider ���gnifi��� for� the understanding of the history of South Asian religious cultur� ���d ��rt. �

22 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

Jain, ��āgarmal. �"Jaināgam� ��āhity� �meṁ ������." � Schubring, W� alther. �Die Lehre der Jainas. �Nach den Paṇḍit Becardās Dośī Smṛti Grantha. �Eds. � � alten Quellen dargestellt. �Berlin: W� alter �D� �Gruyter � M. A.� �Dhaky �& ��. �����, �132-140. Vārāṇ� asī: � & �Co., �1935 �(The Doctrine of the Jainas. Described Pārśvanāth V� idyāśram� �Śodh� ���ṃsthān, �1987. after the Old Sources. Tr.� Wo� lfgang �Beurlen. W� ith � Thr�� �Ind��� �Enlarged ���d Add� ed �by W� illem �Bollé� � Jaini, �Padmanabh ��. The� Jaina Path of Purification. � and ���yandr� ��oni. �Delhi: �Mo����� �Banarsidas, �2000). Berkeley: �University �of �Califor��� �Press, �1979. � Settar, ��. Inviting� Death: Indian Attitude towards the Jayaswal, �K. �P. �"Hāthīgumphā �Inscriptio� ���vised � Ritual Death. �Leiden: �E.J. �Brill, �1989. from ��h� ��ock." The� Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society �4 �(1918) �364-403. Shah, �Umak��� �Premanand. Studies� in Jaina Art. � Benares: �Pārśvanāth V� idyāpīṭha, �1955/1998. Jayaswal, �K. �P. �& ��. �D. �Banerji. �"Th� �Hathigumph� � Inscriptio� �of �." Epigraphia� Indica 20 Shāntā, N.� La� voie Jaina: histoire, spiritualité, vie des (1929-30): 71-89.� D� elhi: M� anager of� Pub� litions,1933. ascètes pèlerines de l'Inde. �Paris: �O.E.I.L., �1985 �(The Unknown Pilgrims. The Voice of the Sādhvīs: The Kasturibai, �M. �& ��. V� araprasad� ���o. �“Vaddamanu �– � History, and Life of the Jaina Women A� �Early ������ ����� ��� �Guntur �District, A� ndrah � Ascetics. Tr.� �Mary ��ogers. �Delhi: ��r� ����guru � Pradesh.” Studies� in Jaina Art and Iconography and Publications, �1997). Allied Subjects in Honour of Dr. U.P. Shah. �Ed. ��.T. � Vyas, �27-34. V� adodara: �Or������ �Institu�� �University � Sircar, �D���� �Chandr� �(ed.). Select� Inscriptions Bearing of �Baroda, �1995. on Indian History and Civilization. Volume I. From the Sixth Century B.C. to the Sixth Century A.D. � Laidlaw, ���mes. �"Profit, ����vatio� ���d �Profitab�� � Calcutta: �University �of �Calcutta, �1942. Saints." �Cambridge Anthropology �9, �3 �(1985) �50-70. Smith, V� ����� A.� The� Jain Stūpa and the Antiquities Laughlin, ���k �C. Ārādhakamūrti/Adhiṣṭhāyakamūrti� from Mathurā. A� llahabad: Ar� chaeolog��� ��urvey �of � - Popular Piety, Politics, and the Medieval Jain India, �1901. Temple Portrait. �Bern: �Peter �Lang, �2003. Strong, ��oh� ��. �The Relics of the Buddha. �Princeton: � Leumann, �Ernst. �"Beziehung�� �der ������-Literatur � Princeto� �University �Press, �2004. zu ���der�� �Literaturkr����� I� ndiens." Actes� du Sixième Congrès International des Orientalistes, �Lei Tambiah, �������y ��. The� Buddhist Saints of the Forest d�� �(1885) �469-564. � and the Cult of Amulets. �Cambridge: �Cambridg� � University �Press, �1984. � Marshall, ��oh� �Hubert. Taxila:� An Illustrated Account of Archaeological Excavations carried out at Taxila under the Orders of the of India between 1913 and 1934. Vo� ls. �I-III. �Cambridge: �Cambridg� � University �Press, �1951.

Parpola, A� sko. �“Th� �Nāsatyas, ��h� �Chario� ���d �Proto- Ary�� �����gion.” Journal� of Indological Studies �16- 17 �(2004-2005) �1-63.

Pischel, ���hard. Grammatik� der Prakrit Sprachen. � Grundriß �der ���do-arisch�� �Philologie, ���. �Band �1. � Hef� �8. ���raßburg, �1900 �(Grammar of the Prakrit Languages. Tr� anslated �from �Germ�� �by ��ubhadr� � Jhā. ���ond ���vised �Edition. �Delhi: �Mo����� � Banarsidas, �1955/1981).

Schopen, �Gregory. Bones,� Stones, and Buddhist Monks. Collected Papers on the Archaeology, Epigraphy, and Texts of Monastic Buddhism in India. �Honolulu: �University �of �Hawai'� � Press, �1997. Fig. �8 Jain stūpa �o� �Āyāgapaṭ� � relief ��� �Kaṅkālī-Ṭīlā

23 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

Lustrating the First King: Digambara Images of Abhiṣeka

Robert J. Del Bontà ______h�� ����ustrating ��h� ���v�� �of ��h� ������, it is typical later paintings produced for the Digambara Jainas in to �u�� ��xam���� from� ��h� Śv� etāmbar� Kalpasūtra� , � Rajasth�� ���d ��h� ��orther� �Deccan, ���d �����r���� ��om� � anWd � many � �������g� � from � manuscr���� � of � �� � hav� � b��� � compariso�� � with � �mpor���� � Digambar� � �������g� � �� � published �over ��h� �years. �O�� �migh� �g�� ��h� ��mpressio� � Śravaṇabeḷgoḷ� � �� � Karṇāṭak� � ��d � Tiruparuttikuṇṛam � �� � th�� ��h�� ���x� ��� ��h� �only �o�� ��o �recou�� ��h� ���v�� �of ��h� � Tamilnādu. � � Jinas, �bu� ��her� ��r� ���ually �many ��uch ���x�� ��� �� �variety � Two ��orth �Ind��� ���r��� �of ��������g� �����d �out. � �O�� � of languages that tell the stories of these tales in much is a long cloth painting or paṭa �(Dosh� �1978). � �Produced � greater �detail. Th� � �Digambar� ������� ����o �wro�� �versio�� � around �1700, ��� ����ustr���� ��h� �pañcakalyāṇaka �(th� �fiv� � of ��h� ���v�� �of ��h� ������ ���d ����ustrated �manuscr���� ��ur- auspiciou� �key ��v���� ��� ��h� ���v�� �of ���� �of ��h� ������) �of � vive, �bu� ��� �far �fewer ��umbers. � � th� �fir�� �����, �Ṛṣabha. �Th� �other ��� �� ���r��� �of ��������g� � Paintings from these manuscripts sometimes differ o� ��h� ���m� ��ubject, �recently �re-dated ��o ��round �1680 ��� � significantly �from �Śvetāmbar� ��ounts. �A � �famou� ���rly � Amber, ��h� ������� ������� �of �����ur ������. �I�� �omposi- manuscript, ���d ��� m�� por���� �docum��� �of ���rly ������- tio�� ������r ��o �b� ��osely �related ��o ��h� ��oth ��������g, � ing �from ��orther� �India, ��� ��� ����ustrated �Ādipurāṇa by which �w�� ��roduced ��round ��wenty �year� �����r. �Initially, � Puṣpad���� � �roduced � �� � Palam � (th� �o � catio� � of � Delhi’� � th� ������ ����ur� �of ��h� ��������g� �w�� �missed, �bu� ��� �1995 � airport) � �� � 1541 � CE. � Digambar� � �uthor� � wro�� � many � �� � w�� � �dentified � �� � relating � �o � � Digambar� � versio� � of � Ādipurāṇas, �versio�� �of ��h� ���f� �of ��h� �fir�� �����, �Ṛṣabha. � Ṛṣabha’� ���f� �(P�� 1995,� ��o. �107a). Th��� � ���ud� � or�� ��� � of � h�� � family, � �rincipally � h�� � �o� � The painting from the series illustrated in The - Bharata, �bu� ����o �of �Bharata’� �younger �brother �Bāhubali.� � ful Liberators (P�� �1995, ��o. �107a) �oncer�� ��h� �����od� � There are also numerous other stories about the later Ji- after ��h� �birth �of �Ṛṣabh� �wh�� ��h� �baby �w�� ���k�� ��o �b� � ��� ��old ��� �����r��� ���xts; ��h� ov� er��� ������for � ��work � �om- lustrated �by �. �Another �folio �from ��h� ���ries, ��� ��h� � bining the entire series is Mahāpurāṇa. � � Lo� A� ng���� �County �Museum �of Ar� � �(M.74.102.4), ��ug- I� � mu� �� b� � r� ecalled ��h�� Ṛṣ� abha’� ���f� ��� ����uded ��� ��h� � g���� �� ����� �from �befor� ��h� ��ustratio� �wh�� �Indr� ���d � Śvetāmbar� �Kalpasūtra, �bu� ��� ��h�� �work �Mahāvīra’� ���f� � Indrāṇī ��m� ��o f� etch ��h� �hild. �Th � � ����riptio�� o� � ��h��� � �� ��old fir� �� ���d g� ��� ��h� mo� �� ��������o� (D� �� Bo� ��� 2007).� � painting� ����rly r� efer ��o ��h� god� ���I � ndra, r� ather ��h�� ��h� � In most of Illustrated Kalpasūtras h� av� v� ery f� ew ����ustra- Śakr� �of ��h� �Śvetāmbar� ��radition. �Ev�� �withou� ��h� ���- tio�� � d���� � Ṛṣabha’� � ��f� � ory,�� � �x��� � �� �rofusely � ��- scriptio�� ��� ��� ����rly ��D � igambar� work.� I� � ��h�� ��radition, � lustrated �ones. �Th�� �migh� �b� �becau�� ��h� �Kalpasūtra is �� ��h� b� irth of� �� �����, I� ndr� ��rriv�� o� � h� �� �����h��� ��o ���k� � actually �� �rather ��hor� �work. � � th� ���f��� �for ��ustration. �Figur� �1, �from ��h� �paṭa, depicts � � � Th� �variou� �Ādipurāṇas and Mahāpurāṇas are much Indr� �o� �h�� �����h��� �during ��h� �festiv����� �for ��h� ���f��� � longer ���d �o����� ����bor��� ���rratives. �Th� �Śvetāmbar� � Ṛṣabha. D� igambar� v� ersio�� of� ��h� ��ustratio� of� ���f��� ���- also �wro�� ��onger ��ou��� �of ��h� ���v�� �of ��h� ���xty-four � ��� �of��� �describ� ��h� �����hant, �which ��� ��b���� �from ��h� � auspicious persons corresponding to the Digambara Śvetāmbar� �Hemachandr� ��ou�� �(1931: �105ff.). Mahāpurāṇa, �bu� �I �hav� ��o� ����� ���y ����ustrated ��xam- An elephant is depicted in all of the birth stories of the ���� �from ��ho�� �works. �Th � � �mo�� ������b�� �Śvetāmbar� � major ���r��� �of �Digambar� ����ustratio�� ��h�� �I �hav� �����: � account, ��o �b� �mentioned �below, ��� ��h� ��welfth ����ury � Triṣaṣṭiśalākāpuruṣacaritra �by �Hemacandr� �(1931).  I �had ��dentified ��h� ����ur� �of ��h� ���r��� ��o �����h�� �Mark�� �for ��h� � Rather ��h�� �rev���� ��h� �Digambar� �Palam �manuscr��� � catalogu� ��� �Lo� A� ngeles. �O� �discussing ��h� ���r��� �with ���ryu �Doshi, � with ���� ���vely, �bu� �rough ���yle, �I �w��� ��ow ��ur� ��o ��om� � �� �w�� ��mmediately ����r ��o �her ����� ��h� h� ad �worked �with ��h� ��mpres- siv� paṭa� ����ributed ��o Aur� angabad. A� � ��h�� ���me, ��� ��� �unclear �how � many �folio� �wer� ��� ��h� Amb� er ����. �Th � er� ��r� ��o ��umber� wr� ����� �o� �  I� �h�� �recently �b��� ��ublished ��� ���� �����rety �(Puṣpad���� 2004)� � any �of ��h� �folio� ��h�� �I �hav� ��racked �down. �A � ��������g �of �h�� �mother � and �w�� �discussed �by ���ryu �Dosh� ��� �her �book Masterpieces� of Jain Marudevī �(��� �Diego �Museum �of Ar� � �1990.213) �mak�� ��h� ��dentifica- Painting, �wher� �� ��umber �of ��mag�� ��r� ����ustrated. � tio� �of ��h� ���r��� �definite, ��� �do �ompariso�� �with ��h� paṭa� .

(Figur� �2) � The Birth Ceremonies of Nemi Saṅgī�� �Maṇḍapa, � Vardhamā�� ���mple, � Tiruparuttikuṇṛam, � cir� �18th ����ury. � Mural. Photo: �D�� �Bontà

24 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

(Figur� �1) � Indra on Airāvaṭa Pañcakalyāṇak� paṭa� Aurangabad circa 1700 Ink, �opaqu� w� atercolour, ���d �gold �o� ��oth Photo: Courtesy of Saryu Doshi

the paṭa, ��h� �Amber ����, ��h� ���ory �of ��h� ���f� �of �Pārśv� � length, � �� � Digambar� � ����ratur� � �h� � ��f� � of � Ṛṣabh� � ��- from � �h� � ����� � Maṭh� � �� � Śravaṇabeḷgoḷ� � ��d � � �umber � pear� ��o �b� ��rimary, ����� �h� �w�� ��h� �fir�� �tīrthaṅkara. � of ��������� ��� ��h� �������d ���r��� ��� �Tiruparuttikuṇṛam, � I� ��dditio� ��o ��ou��� ��� �����rature, �v��� �mur�� ��hem�� � sometim�� � referred �o � � �� � ����-Kāñcī � �� � Tamilnadu, � �� � �� ��om� �of ��h� ��mpor���� ����res, ���d���� ��h�� �� ��umber � ���� �her� ��� ��h� �birth �of �Nemi. �(Figur� �2) � �Often, ��� ��� � of ��h� �other ������ �had ��xtensiv� ���or��� ��old ��bou� ��hem � Figur� �1, ��h� �depictio� �of ��h� �����h��� ��� ��xtremely ����b- �� � well. �A� � Śravaṇabeḷgoḷ� � �� �h� � �������g� � �� �h� � ���� � or��� ���d �follow� �Digambar� �descriptio�� �with �mu������ � Maṭha, ��gr � ��� d� ��� of� ����� ��� ���k�� u� � w� ith ��h� ���or��� of� � trunk� ���d ��usk� ���d ��v�� �with ��ond� ���routing ��otu��� � th� v� ariou� ����rnatio�� of� Pārśv� � (Do� sh� 1981:� 108-39),� � which ��uppor� �dancing �figures. A� � �����h��� �representing � wh��� ��� �Tiruparuttikuṇṛam ��xtensiv� ���or��� ��r� ��old �of � th� �birth �festiv����� �of �Pārśv� ��� ���milarly �handled �with � three: Ṛṣ� abha, M� ahāvīr� ���d N� em� (� Ramacandr�� 2002).� � mu������ � �usk� � �� � Śravaṇabeḷgoḷ� � �� �h� � mur��� � �� �h� � Among � �h� � Nem� � ����o�� � �mpor���� � ����� � versio�� � of � ���� M� aṭha, bu� � ���k� ��h� ��ond� ���d d� ancing figur� es. Th� � � Kṛṣṇa’� � ��f� �r � � � depicted � �� � well, � ���� � h� � w�� � ��r� � of � scene is also depicted in the Palam manuscript as illus- Nemi'� �family. � trated �by �Dosh� �(1985: �95). Linked �with ��h� �depictio�� �of ��h� �����h��� ���king ��h� � I� bo� th ��h� D� igambar� ���d Śv� etāmbar� ��raditio�� ��her� � infant for his janmābhiṣeka, � �h� � birth-lustration, � �� �h� � �� �� �multiplicatio� �of �/Śakras, �who ��� �b� �onsid- manner �of ��h� ��ustratio� ������f. � �Th� �hild ��� ��ustrated ��� � ered ��� ����her �� ��umber �of �god� �who �ru�� ���rticular �re- birth o� � Mou� �� M� eru ���bo � th ��raditions. �Bu � � ��h� ��ustratio� � gions, or� v� ariou� v� ersio�� of� ��h� ���m� figur� e. �Bu � � I� ndra’� � of ��h� �baby ����� ��� ����ustrated �differently ��� �Śvetāmbar� � eleph��� ��� ��o� �mentioned ��� ��h� �birth �of �Ṛṣabh� ��� ��h� � and �Digambar� ��������gs. �Th� �usu�� �Kalpasūtra �versio� � Hemacandr� ���x� �(1931: �110 �ff.): ��her� �Śakr� ��rriv�� ��� � of the lustration merely has the baby Jina seated in the an elaborate vimāna �or ���r��� ��r. �Hemacandar� �(1931: � ��� of� Ś� akr� ���d ��h� figur� � ��� ��ustrated w� ith w� ater flow� ing � 188 �ff.) �do�� �describ� ��h�� �mag��� �����h��� ��� �Ṛṣabha’� � from ��h� �hor�� �of �bu��� �(Hemacandr� �1931: �125 ���d �D�� � samavasaraṇa, �or ����hing ��fter �h�� �����ghtenment. �El- Bo��� 2007:� �30). ephants do appear in Kalpasūtra � ���ustrations, � bu� �h � ey � Th� �Digambar� �versio� ��� ����� ��� ��h� ��ustratio� �of ��h� � appear �for �differ��� �����od�� ���d �usually ��� �veh���� �for � inf��� �Ṛṣabh� �o� �Mou�� �Meru �from ��h� �paṭa. �(Figur� �3) � peo��� ���d ��o� �god� �(Brown: �1934: �figs. �65, �68, �122-23, � Th�� w� ay of� d� epicting ��h� mou� ����� ��� �� �������d ��yramid � and 127).� I� h� av� �����o � nly o� �� ��xam��� of� I� ndr� r� iding ��� � �� ���other �featur� �ommo� ��� �Digambar� ����ustrations. �I� � eleph��� for� ��h� b� irth ��remony. E� lsewher� I� h� av� ��rgued � th�� ��h� ����ustrator �w�� ���fluenced �by �� �Digambar� ��radi- tio� �(D�� �Bo��� �2004: �215-16). Although the title pañcakalyāṇaka �refer� ��o ��h� �fiv� � cru��� � �v���� � �� �h� � ��v�� � of � ��� � of � �h� � �����, � both � �h� � paṭa and the Amber set include many scenes from the lif� � of � Ṛṣabh� � which �r � � � ��rticular � �o � h�� � ��ory. � Ther� � ar� ����o ��dded ��v���� ���r � ecounting ��h� ������’ ���v�� ��� ��h� � Śvetāmbar� �Kalpasūtra ��uch ��� �Nemi’� �renunciatio� ��f- ter his hearing the cries of the animals to be slaughtered for � h�� � wedding, � ��d � �h� � ��uliar � �v���� � �urrounding � Pārśva’� � ��f� ���d � ��� � ���ociatio� � with � ���kes. �A� � �oint- ed � ou� � �� � Brow� � (1934) � many � of � �h��� � ����fi � �v���� � ar� �m � plied � �� �h� � ��x� � �����f � ��d � refl�� � knowledg� � of � th� � �onger � Śvetāmbar� � versio�� � of � �h��� � ��ories. �Wh��� � (Figur� �3) �Janmābhiṣeka of Ṛṣabha, �Pañcakalyāṇak� �paṭa, �Auranga- bad, ��r� �1700. �Ink, �opaqu� w� atercolour, ���d �gold �o� ��oth. � the Kalpasūtra ������ ��h� ���f� �of �Mahāvīr� ��� ��h� �gr������ � Photo: Courtesy of Saryu Doshi

25 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

sugg���� ��h� �heigh� �of �Mou�� �Meru ���d �giv�� ������ �for � th� �mu������ �Indr�� ��o �����d �wh��� �������g ��h� ��o�� �u� ��o � th� ��op. � �Figur� �4 ����ustr���� �� ���milar ����� ���king ����� � o� �� �������d ��yramid-lik� mou� ����� from� ��h� ������M � aṭh� � �� �Śravaṇabeḷgoḷa. � �Th�� ���m� ��h� �ritu�� ��� �for ��h� ���f��� � Pārśva. �Another ��������g, ��ow ��� ��h� �Berkeley �Ar� �Mu- seum, from� ��N � emipurāṇ� from� ���jasth�� of� ��. 1625-75� � show� �� ���milar �����for � ��h� �����N � emi. �(F � igur� 5)� �H � er� � he is seated in the crescent shaped siddhaśilā, �which ��� � rem������� �of ��h� ����x �of ��h� �world ����� �(loka-ākāśa). � Th�� �ould ��ugg��� �� ��ustratio� ��fter �Nemi’� �mokṣa, �bu� � th� ���z� �of ��h� ���f��� ����� �u� �know ��h�� ��h�� ��� ��� �h�� �birth. � � I� ���y ����, ��h� ��ustratio� of� ��h� bod� iless Jina after mokṣa would � b� � �����ropriate. � Th� � ��gh� � �uspiciou� � �ymbo�� � are seen to the side of the lustration scene and musi- ���� ���d �dancer� ����br��� ��h� ��v��� ��� h�� � �water �from � th� �ritu�� ����d�� ��� �� �zigzag ������r� �from ��h� �mou����� � peak. � �Th��� ��������g� ���d ��h� �following ��xam��� ����us- trate constant motifs found in Digambara imagery that spread� �both �over �� ���rg� ��r�� ���d ���me. Th�� � �ouring � of � fluid� � over � �h� � ����’� � head � �� � fre- qu��� �ritu�� ��� �Digambar� ��onography. � �I� ��� ����o ����� � (Figur� �5) Janmābhiṣeka of Nemi, � �Folio �45 �(recto) �from �� � �� �Figur� �2 �from �Tiruparuttikuṇṛam. �O�� ��� �ju�� �mak� � Nemipurāṇa ��oose-leaf �manuscript. ���jasthan, �Marwar, ��robably � ou� ��h� ��o�� ��round ��h� �figur� �of ��h� �baby �Nem� ��� ��h� � Jodhpur, ��r� �1625-75. �Ink, �opaqu� �watercolour, ���d �gold �o� � paper. �(Berkeley Ar� � �Museum �1998.42.104.2) � � pavilio� ��o ��h� �right. �Th� ����� �read� �from �righ� ��o ���ft. � Courtesy �of ��h� B� erkeley Ar� � �Museum, �Photo: �D�� �Bontà Four Indras perform the janmābhiṣeka ��remony—two � lif� ��o�� ��o ���h ���d� �of ��h� �hild ���d ��wo �mor� ��r� ��o ��h� � Th� ����ustratio�� �of��� ��how �figur�� �o� ����her ���d� �hold- sid�� �of ��h� ���vilion. �Gold ��ot-lik� ����m���� ����o ��dor� � ing ���outed �jar� �rather ��h�� ��h� �cauris �described ��� ���x� � th� roof� of� ��h� ���vilion. To� ��h� ���f� ��h� b� aby ��� ���k�� b� ack � (Hemacandr� �1935: �125 ���d �D�� Bo� ��� 2007:� �30, �fig. �4). � � to ��h� ���y ���o� ��h� �����h��� ���d ��u� o� � ��h� ��hrone; ��h� fig� - This Digambara manner of lustration is used in other ures to his sides in the throne scene at the left hold cauris, � ����� ��� ��h� ���rrative. �O�� �folio �from ��h� Amb� er ���r��� � yak-���� fly-wh� isks. Th� � ��ustratio� w� ith ��o�� ������r� ��o b� � � �� � �h�� � of � Ṛṣabh� � �ustrated � ��h � � � fir�� � king. � (Figur� � 6) � �  � �o�������� �ritu�� ��� �Digambar� ����ustrations. Th�� ��� ��� ��v��� ���uliar ��o �h�� ���f� ���ory ���d ��� ����o ����� � Righ� � �fter �h � � � birth � of � Ṛṣabha, � Hemacandr� � (1935: � in the paṭa. � I� � both � �������� � mu������ � rowned � Indr�� � 118 �ff.) �describ�� ��h� �u�� �of ��o�� �for ��h� �janmābhiṣeka, � pour ��h� �fluid �from ��o�� �over ��h� �head �of �Ṛṣabha. �Curi- but all the Kalpāsutra ��xam���� ��h�� �I �hav� ����� ����us- ously, �for ��h� ��ustratio� ��� �king, �rājyābhiṣeka, �Hemacan- tr��� ��h� �����r �����wh � �� Ś� akr� ���k�� ��h� b� aby ���h � �� ����. � dr� �(1935: �148 �ff.) ������� ��h�� ��h�� ��� ��o� ��o �b� �done: �“ �‘I� � �� ��o� ��roper ��o ��hrow ��� �o� ��h� �Lord’� �head ����� �h� ��� �  Although �mo�� �of ��h� ��������g� �of ��ustratio� �hav� �� �grou� �of � adorned �with �div��� �ornam���� ���d ��othes.’ �They ��hrew � crowned �Indr�� ���rforming ��h� ��ustratio� �with ��ots, �o�� ��������g � th� �water ��� �h�� �feet.” �For ��ho�� �used ��o �Śvetāmbar� ��m- �� T� iruparuttikuṇṛam �h�� ���d��� ����uded ��� ��h� �ritu�� �for ��h� �hild � Mahāvīr� �(Ramacandram �2002: ���. VII,� �3). �Th � � �Palam �manuscr��� � agery, ��h�� �����m � ay ��ugg��� �� ��ustratio� of� ��h� ����� f�� ter � also ����uded �� �wom�� ��� ��� ����ustratio� �of ��h� ��ustratio� �of �Ṛṣabh� � h�� �����ghtenment, �bu� �o�� �mu�� �remember ��h�� ��h�� ��� �� � (Khandalav��� �1969: � �fig. �148). �Th � � ����usio� �of �wom�� ��ugg���� ��h� � Digambar� ��mage, ���d ��h� �f�� ��h�� ��h� �figur� �of � �Ṛṣabh� � participatio� �of �wiv�� �of ��h� �Indras. � �� ��othed ��� �both ����ustratio�� ���d �rowned ��� ��h� �paṭa ru��� �ou� ��h�� �����rpretation. �Th� ����� �from ��h� �Palam � manuscr��� �h�� �m�� ��� ��urb��� ����roaching �with ��o�� ��o � lustr��� ��h� �rowned �Ṛṣabh� �o� �� ��hro�� �(Khandalav��� � 1969: �72). �I �hav� �found �only �o�� ��ublished ����ustratio� � of the rājyābhiṣeka ceremony from a Kalpasūtra manu- scr��� (Brow� � 1934:� fig.� 121)� wh� er� Ś� akr� m� erely �������� � the tilak ��o ��h� �forehead �of �Ṛṣabha. I� � �� � ���r � �h�� � head � ��ointing � �� � very � �mpor���� � �� � Digambar� � ritual, � �otably � ��h � � � ritu�� � for � Bāhub��� � �� � Śravaṇabeḷgoḷa. � Wh��� � �� � Tiruparuttikuṇṛam � �h� � ���� � of �Ṛṣabha’� �oronatio� ��� �wor� ��way, �other �����������o�� � of �king� ��r� �depicted, ��� ��� ��h� �oronatio�� �of �Nam� ���d � Vinami, � wher� � �h� � figur� � of � Dharanendr� � merely � ��- (Figur� �4) �Janmābhiṣeka � of Pārśva, �From ��h� ������ �Maṭha, � plies the tilak ��o ��heir �forehead� �(Ramachandram �2002: � Karṇāṭaka, �Śravaṇabeḷgoḷa, �Cir� �1825-50. �Mural. � �Photo �D�� �Bontà pl. �XV). Wh� �� ������r� ��vid��� ��� h�� �� ��h�� ��ustratio� �with �

26 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

po�� �by ��h� �Indr�� ��� ��xclusiv� ��o ����� �figures, �whether � Cort, ��oh� �E., �“Th� ����� ��� �King", Vasantagauravam� , � �� ��heir �birth� �or �other ��mpor���� �mom���� ��� ��heir ���ves. � Essay� ��� �������m, ��d. ���yandr� ��oni, � : V� akils, �Feffner ���d ���mo�� L� td, �2001 I� ������r� ������ropr���� �for �other �figures. ��oh� �E. �Cor� � (2001) �h�� �discussed �differ���� ��� �Digambar� �ontem- D�� �Bontà, ��ober� ��., �“Though�� o� � ����� �Painting� ��� � porary r� itu�� ��r����� ��� �����ur ���d K� arṇāṭaka, wh� er� h� � � ��� �Francisco �Bay Ar� �� �Collections,” �for Ananda-� demonstrates that abhiṣeka ��� ��ow �mo�� �ommo� ��� ��h� � vana: Essays in Honour of Anand Krishna, �Krishna, � Nav�� ���d �Manu, ��ds., V� aranasi: �Ind�� �Books, �2004, � souther� ��reas. pp. �211-18. Too � few � �������g� � from � Digambar� � ��r��� � �r� � docu- mented to enable a complete picture of the consistencies D�� �Bontà, ��ober� ��., �"Illustrating ��h� �Liv�� �of ��h� � and ���o���������� ��� ��h� �visu�� �depictio�� �of ��h� ���or��� � Jinas: Early Paintings from the Kalpasūtra", � Newsletter of the Centre of Jaina Studies, � from ��h� ���v�� �of ��h� ������—bu� ��� ��� ����r �from ��h� �few � March �2007, �Issu� �2, ���. �28-31. comparisons entertained here that there are clear patterns found throughout India in both northern and southern Doshi, ���ryu, �“Th� P� ancha-kalyanak� �Pata, ��hoo� �of � painted ���ries. �I� ��urn, ��h� �un-illustrated ���rrativ� �����ra- Aurangabad,” Marg� �31, �No.4, �1978, ���. �45-54. ture of the Jainas appears to get less attention than do Doshi, ���ryu, �Homage to Shravana Belgola, �Bombay: � th� �religious, ��hilosoph��� ��reatises. �U���� �� ��ystem��� � Marg �Publications, �1981 study �of ��h� �variou� �versio�� �of ��h� ���v�� �of ��h� ������ ��� � do�� ���d �� ��horough ��valuatio� �of ��h� ����ustrated �manu- Doshi, ���ryu, �Masterpieces of Jain Painting, � Bombay: �Marg �Publications, �1985 scripts, �������d �w��� ��hemes, ���d ��oo�� ��������g� ���ke- w��� ��� �onducted, w� � ���o � nly ��o��� ou� � ��om� of� ��h� �on- Hemacandr� Ā� cāry� �, Triṣaṣṭiśalākāpuruṣacaritra� : Vol. I ��������� �found ��� h�� � �visu�� ��vid��� �which ��� �differ��� � Ādīśvaracaritra, �H���� �M. ��ohnson, ��rans., � from � �h� � usu�� � depictio�� � from � �h� � ��v�� � of �h � � � �����, Gaekwad’� �Or������ ���ries, �No. �LI, �Baroda: �P. � Knight, �1931. based on illustrations from the hundreds of Kalpasūtra manuscripts. Khandalavala, �Kar� ��. ���d �Mo�� �Chandra, New� Documents of —a Reappraisal, � Robert J. Del Bontà has lectured and published on a Bombay: �Pr��� �of W� ���� �Museum, �1969. wide variety of subjects including Jaina art from all over Pal, �Pratapaditya, ��d., The� Peaceful Liberators, Jain India. He has curated many exhibits at the Asian Art Art from India, �Lo� A� ngeles, �Lo� A� ng���� �County Museum in San Francisco (including some on Jaina art) Museum of Art: 1995 and major exhibitions at the University of California, Puṣpad���� �Ācārya, �Ādipurāṇa �(Sacitra), �Mahaviraji: � Berkeley and the . Jainavidy� ������hana, �2004. �

References: Ramachandran, T.� �N., �Tiruparuttikuṇṛam and its Temples, � Bulletin of the Madras Government Museum, �New ���ries, � Brown, �Norm�� W.,� �Miniature Painting of the Jaina Gener�� �����on, Vo� l. �I, �Pt. �3, �reprinted �: � Kalpasūtra, ��mithso���� �Instiution, �Freer �Gallery �of � Commissioner �of �Museums, �Governm��� of� T� amilnadu, �2002. Art, �Or������ ���r��� �No. �2, W� ashington: �Freer, �1934

(Figur� �6) �Rājyābhiṣeka � of Ṛṣabha , Amb� er, cir� �1680. Ink, �opaqu� w� atercolour, ���d �gold �o� � paper. � � Photo: �D�� Bo� ntà

27 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

The Mūrtipūjaka Śvetāmbara Community in North Delhi

Akiko Shimizu ______

studied � �h� � haracter����� � of � �h� � Mūrtipūjak� � Śvetāmbar� ����� ���y �ommunity ��� �Delh� ��hrough ��h� � hIist ory of� ��h� ��xisting ‘O� ld D� elhi’ ������ ���d ��heir �ommu- nities, ���d ��h� �������m���� �of ���wcomer� ����� ��heir ��xo- du� �during ��h� �Partitio� ��� �1947. �Th� �Mūrtipūjak� ������ � ar� �� �minority ��� �Delhi. �Ther� ��r� �only �16 �Śvetāmbar� � tem���� � �� �h� � Delh� � �rea, � bu� � 61 � h���� � (upāśraya) of th� ���hānakavāsīs. �Historically ��h� ����� �ommunity �w�� � dominated � by � �h� � Digambar�� � (148 � ��m���� � urrently) � and �onfined �with�� ��h� �walled-city �of �Śāhjahānābād ��� � Old D� elhi. Th� er� h� av� b� ��� M� ūrtipūjak� �ommu������ ��� �

Old �Delh� �for �� ��ong ���me. �However, �� ���w �Mūrtipūjak� � P ete r � F l üg el community ���d ���m��� w� er� �����blished by� P� añjābī r� efu- g��� ��� h�� � ���wly �developed ��r�� �of �North �Delhi. � I � hav� � onducted � fieldwork � with � �h� � Mūrtipūjak� � Tīrthaṅkar� �Mallināth� ��� ���r� �of �� �four-faced �(caturmukha) at Śvetāmbar� ����� ���y �ommunity ����uated ��� ���� �Nagar, � th� V� ijay� V� allabh� ��mārak � North �Delhi. �Th� ���� �Nagar �ommunity ��� �uniqu� �be- cau�� �of ���� �����blishm��� �by �Pañjābī �refug�� ������, ���d � Delhi. �Th� �orig���� �Pañjābī �member� �of ��h� �ommunity � ��� ��o�� r� elationsh�� w� ith ��rom����� ������ ����ders. Th� � � ar� � dedicated � devo���� � of � �h� � flu�� ������ � Tapā � Gacch� � community ��� ��ffiliated ��o ��h� �Mūrtipūjak� �Śvetāmbar� � Ācāry�� � Vijay� � Ānand� � ��r� � (1837-1896) � ��d � Vijay� � Tapā G� accha, ���d �����ructed by� �� ���rticular org� anised ���- Vallabh� ���r� �(1870-1954), ��h� ����der� �of �� �reformed ���- ��� �grou� �(samudāya). � ��� �grou� ��� �Gujarā� ����� ��h� �mid-19th ����ury ���d ���� � Th� ��ocio-religiou� ���ructur� of� ��h� P� añjābī Śv� etāmbar� � pupilary ������g� �of �disciples. �Th� �Mūrtipūjak� ������ ��� � ����� �differ� �from ��h� �older �ommunities, �Agravā�� ���d � Pañjāb �hav� �� �����fi �history ��� ��h�� ��her� �w�� ��o �on- Khaṇḍelavā�� �Digambar�� ���d ��ājasthānī �Śvetāmbaras, � ��� �with ������� �for �� �few ����ur��� �u���� ��h� �saṃvegī �� ��h� �walled ���y, �which ��r� �mostly �omposed �of �mem- (liberatio� ����king) �sādhu �reform �movement. �Th� ��o�� � ber� of� ��wo �����r��� m� erch��� ������. Th� � m� ajority of� ��h� � Śvetāmbar� ��raditio� w� �� ��reserved by� M� ūrtipūjak� � Śvetāmbar�� ��r� �Osvālas, �mainly �Vī�� �Osvālas, ���d ��h� � (domesticated mo� nks) ���d ��h� ���hānakavāsī (Ḍh� ūnḍhiyā) � minority, Kh� aṇḍelavālas. ���hānakavāsī� ���d fo� llower� of� � ascetics, u� ���� ��h� P� añjāb M� ūrtipūjak� r� eviv�� w� �� ����rted � th� � Mūrtipūjak� � Kharatar� � Gacch� � �r� � �����d � with�� � by ��wo ����der� from� ��h� saṃvegī� sādhu mov� ement, Mu� �� � the community because of their shared history of migra- Būṭerāy ��ī �(1807-1882) ���d �Ācāry� �Vijay� �Ānand� ���ri, � tio� �from ��ājasthā� ��o �Pañjāb ���d �Delhi. �Over ���m� ��h� � who � wer� � of � �on-���� � origin, � ��d � who � had � onverted � ��� �Nagar �Mūrtipūjak� ����� �ommunity ��xperienced ��� � from ���hānakavāsī �order� ��o ��h� T� apā �. � influx of� ���w m� igr���� from� d� iver�� b� ackgrounds, mo� stly � Befor� � �h� � Partition, � �� � ��� undivided � Pañjāb, � �h� � Rājasthānī� � ��d � Gujarātīs, � joining � �h� � ommunity. �Th� � Pañjābī �Mūrtipūjak� ������ �wer� �����ructed �by ��h� �har- pr����� r� atio of� ��h� �ommunity m� ember� ���75% � P� añjābī� � ism��� �Ācāry� V� ijay� V� allabh� ���ri, �who �w�� �� �d������ � and � 25% �āj � asthānī� � ��d � Gujarātīs, � �ording � �o � �h� � of �Ācāry� �Vijay� �Ānand� ���ri. A� � �� �religiou� ����der �Vi- Presid��� �of ��h� ���bhā, �Mr. �B.C. �����. �Th� ��o��� ���ruc- jay� �Vallabh� ���r� ��romoted ����� ����hing� ���d ��deals, � ture is due to change as a result of the increasing number and ����o ��mpaigned for� ��h� d� evelopm��� ���d w� elfar� of� � of ��on-Pañjābī Śr� imalīs, b� esid�� O� svālas. Th� er� ��r� ��om� � th� ����� �ommunity. �H� �w�� �w��� �know� ��mong �h�� �fol- discr������� � betw��� � �h� � Pañjābī � ��d � other � regio��� � lower� ��� �� �camatkārī, �� �mir��� �maker ����ociated �with � member� � with � regard � �o � religiou� � ��d � �o��� � ����rac- cer���� d� iv��� ��owers, � ���d ����o ��� �� ��o��� ����v��� ��mong � tion. ��ocio-religiou� ��ffiliatio� ����m� ��o b� � qu� ��� fl� exib�� � th� ������. ��om� of� my� ���form���� ��� ��h� ����N � �om- among�� �Pañjābī �Śvetāmbar� ������. �Inter-sectar��� �mar- munity ��old m� � ��bou� ��xtraordinary ��v���� ���wh � ich ���o- riag� �of �Mūrtipūjak�� �with ���hānakavāsī� ��� �qu��� �om- ��� w� er� ��rotected by� ��h� ��ower� of� V� ijay� V� allabh� ���ri. � � mo� wh� ��� ��� ���r � ar� ��mong ��h� ��ājasthānī� ���d Guj� arātīs. � Th� ���or��� �of ��h� ��xodu� �from �Gujrānvālā, �Pak����� ��o- However, ����� ���dogamy ��� �dom����� �for ���� ������, �bu� � gether �with �him ���d �h�� ���v�� �fellow �sadhūs and four- for �� �few ��xceptions, ���d ��� ��� ����r ��h�� �regio��� �orig��� � teen sādhvīs after paryuṣaṇa ��� ������mber 1947� ��r� w� ��� � tend ��o �divid� �ommunity �members. known. � Hundred� � of � ����� � �����d � �� �ruck� � ���� � from � Th� h� istory of� ��h� ����N � agar M� ūrtipūjak� �ommunity � India. Th� ey ��ravelled ��� ��h� �mid�� �of �fier� �bombing, ���d � �� �relatively ��hort. �I� �w�� �reated �by ��h� �Pañjābī �refug�� � reached ��h� �Ind��� �boarder �with ��o �damage. �A�� ��r����� � ����� ��fter ��heir �������m��� ��� ��h� �midd�� �of ��h� �1950’s. � � community �member� �believed ��h�� ����d��� �w�� �du� ��o � They �o  nstructed � �h� � Śrī � Śāntināth� � ���� � Śvetāmbar� � th� �Ācārya’� �miraculou� ��ower. � Tem��� ��� ���� �Nagar ��� �1961 �with �donatio�� �from ��h� � Th� �member� �of ��h� ���� �Nagar �ommunity, ���rticu- orig���� � member� � of � 29 � Pañjābī � refug�� � fam����� � ��d � larly � �h� � orig���� � Pañjābī � refugees, � �r� � united � �hrough � other � Śvetāmbar� � ommunities. � Th� � ��� � Nagar � ��m- continued �devotio� ��o �Ācāry� �Vijay� �Vallabh� ���ri. �Th� � ��� ��� �� �oncr��� ��ymbo� �of ��h� �Pañjābī �refug�� ������ ��� � elderly � member� � of � �h� � ommunity �v � �� � �ow � �xpr��� �

28 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

their � obligatio� � ��d � gratitud� �o � � �h� � Ācārya. �Ther� � �r� � many �devotio��� ��ong� �(bhajana) and dedicated to � him, � which � �r� � �ung � ��d � recited � by � �h� � ommunity � member� ���d ��h� r� efug�� ������who � w� ��� ��hrough ��h� or� - d��� �of �fleeing �from �Pakistā� �with �him. � Through ��h� ����work �of �relativ�� ���d �friend� ��h� �mi- gr���� b� eg�� ��o �������dow � � ���Nor � th D� elhi, ��� ��uch ������ � �� �Kamlā �Nagar, �Śak�� �Nagar ���d ���� �Nagar. ����� ��h� � refug�� �Mūrtipūjak�� ��� �Delh� �from �Pak����� ���d �Pañjāb � recognised �o�� ���other ��� �follower� �of �Vijay� �Vallabh� � Sūri, �mo�� �of ��hem ��m� ��ogether ��o �form �� �ommuni- ty. �Th� � ������d � refug�� � ����� � ����blished � �� � ���ociatio� � P ete r � F l üg el (sabhā), � �h� � Śrī � Ātmānand� � ���� � ��bhā � �� � ��� � Nagar, � derived from� Śrī� Ā� tmānand� ����� ���bhā fou� nded ���Zīrā, � � Pañjāb ���1920. � �Th � � ���m� of� ��h� ����ociatio� ���d � edicated � Statu� �of V� ijay� V� allabh� ���r� ��� ��h� � to ��h� ��rom����� �Ācāry� �Vijay� �Ānand� ���ri, ��opularly � Memor��� �H��� ��� ��h� V� allabh� ��mārak. know� ��� �Ātmarām� ��ī. �Du� ��o ��heir ������� �veneratio� � to �Ācāry� �Vijay� �Vallabh� ���r� ��h� ���bhā, ��ffiliated ��o � I� ��h� ���� �Nagar �ommunity ��h� �b��� �pūjās in the tem- �� ������ �order �(samudāya) �of ��h� �Vallabh� ���mudāya, � ple, �u � ch � �� �h� � aṣṭaprakārī pūjā and the snātra pūjā, � suppor�� ��� ���rticular ��h� ������� �from �h�� ������ge. �Th� � ar� � undertak�� � with � refer��� � �o �h � � � ��x�� � �ripted � by � Śrī �Ātmānand� ����� ���bhā, ���� �Nagar, �functio�� ��� ��h� � Vijay� � Ānand� � ��ri, � ��d � �remo���� � pūjās such as the foundatio� �for ���� �migr��� �Pañjābī ������ ��� ���rm� �of ��d- pañca kalyāṇaka pūjā, ��ripted �by �Vijay� �Vallabh� ���ri. � ministratio� ���d �religiou� ���d ��o��� ����v����� ��� �Delh� � Many ��rayers, �omposed by� V� ijay� V� allabh� ���ri, ��r� r� e- and ��h� ��urrounding ��reas. A� �� M� ūrtipūjak� P� añjābī ������ � cited by the community members; the ceremonial songs register ��o ��h� �Śrī �Ātmānand� ����� ���bhā, �Delh� �(devel- of āratī and maṅgala dīpaka ��r� ��ung ��very ��vening ��� � oped � from � Śrī � Ātmānand� � ���� � ��bhā, � ��� � Nagar) � �� � th� �rite, ���d �many ��rayer� ��r� �wr����� ��� o�� ��� ����guag� � w��� ��� ��heir �ow� �sabhās ��� ��heir �ow� �resid������ ��rea. � �� �Hindī. Th� � ��o�� �relationsh�� �with ��h�� �����fi ������ � Th� �Delh� ���bhā �h�� �om� ��o ����y ��h� �ro�� �of ��h� ��rans- order ��� �����r��� from� ���xtu�� ���flu���� ��hrough ��rayer� � community h� eadquarter� for� ����D � elh� M� ūrtipūjak� ������, � �� ��h� �ritu��� �onducted �by ��h� ���y �ommunity �members. � including �h � � � �xisting � Mūrtipūjak� � ommunity � �� � Old � Th� � relationsh�� � betw��� � �h�� � ��rticular �o � �� � ommu- Delhi. �Delh� �h�� �becom� �� ���gnifi��� ���ronghold �for ��h� � nity ���d ���� ffi�� liated ������ �order ��� ���rengthened �by ��h� � Vallabh� ���mudāy� of� ��h� T� apā G� accha, wh� ich ��� ��b�� ��o � ritu�� ���xts. extend ���� ���flu��� �from �Delh� ��ro�� �Norther� �India. In this case of a single local community the relation- To � ommemor��� � Ācāry� � Vijay� � Vallabh� � ��ri, � �h� � sh�� �betw��� ��h� ���� �Nagar �ommunity ���d ��h� ������ � larg� � religiou� � omplex � ����d � �h� � Śrī � Vijay� � Vallabh� � order of the samudāya ��� ���ghtly ����ked, �based �o� ��h� �de- Smārak � (Memorial) � w�� � onstructed � �� � Alipur, � o� � �h� � votio� ��o �� �����fi �ācārya since the community’s foun- outskir�� � of � North � Delhi. � Th� � Vallabh� � �mārak � �� �h� � dation; ��hrough ����ronage; ���d ��hrough ���� �ritu�� ���yle. symbo� �of V� ijay� V� allabh� ���ri’� �missio� ���d ��d���� ��h�� � Akiko Shimizu, �Researcher at the Eastern Institute, To- wer� ��romoted �mo�� ��rominently �by �h�� �disciple, ��ādhvī � kyo, completed her PhD thesis entitled: ‘The Religious Mṛgāvatī P� ūjyā ��ī ����� ��h� 1970’� s. Mṛgāv� atī Śrī� ��ī’� v� en- Life of the Śvetāmbara Mūrtipūjaka Jains of the Rūp Na- eratio� ��oward� �him �resulted ��� ��h� �����blishm��� �of ��h� � gar Temple Community in North Delhi, India’, submitted religiou� �omplex, �omprising V� allabh� ��urī’� M� emor��� � H��� � with � Śrī � Vāspūjy� � Temple, � Padmāvatī � Devī � Tem- to the University of London in 2006. ple, �dharmaśālā, �bhojanaśālā, ���d �other �facilities, ��uch � �� ��ducatio��� �������utions, ����� ��hoo�� ���d �Indolog��� � Institute, � ��h � � � �mārak. � Her � ro�� ng � ���dersh�� � helped � th� � �roj�� � �o � b� � realised � by � h�� � devotees, � ��rticularly � through ��h� �gr��� ��ffor� �of ��h� �Pañjābī ������ �of ���� �Na- gar. �I� ��� ������ ��xpanding �with ���vish �donations, ��o� �only � from ��h� �Pañjābī �devo���� �bu� ����o �from ��ho�� �who �had � connectio�� w� ith V� ijay� V� allabh� ���r� ���d h� �� ������ ����- eag� ����ov � er I� ndia. Th� � ��mārak �omplex ��r������ �� ������ � of ��olidarity for� ��h� d� evo���� of� V� ijay� V� allabh� ���ri. Th� � � cross-community ����v����� �of ��h� ��mārak ��r� ���med ��o � reprodu� ��h� d� evotio� ���d r� eligiou� ��ffiliatio� of� ��h� fo� l- lower� �of ��h� ������ �order� �of �Vijay� �Ānand� ���r� ���d � Vijay� � Vallabh� � ��ri. � Th� � Vallabh� � �mārak � �how� � �h� � uniqu� � ����ractio� � betw��� � �h� � ������ � ��d � �h� � ross- P ete r � F l üg el community �member� �of �Vijay� �Vallabh� ���ri’� �devo���� � nationwide. Th� �religiou� ��ffiliatio� ��o �� �����fi ������ �grou� ��� � Statu� �of �Ācāry� V� ijay� �Ānand� ���r� ��� ��h� � signifi��� �for ��h� �����y ��� ��� �r������ ��o ��h� ���y�� �of �ritual. � Vijay� V� allabh� ��mārak � �

29 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

Glimpses from Vasunandin’s Manual Uvāsayajjhayaṇa

Signe Kirde ______

� �March �2006, �I �had �� �h��� ��o �v���� �Girgaum ���d � trustworthy ����her (� āpta), ��h� ����� ����hing or� ��riptur� � other ������ ��� �Mumbai, ��� �w��� ��� �Guna, �Bho��� ���d � (āgama) and the principles padārthas or are ac- AIshok �Nagar� ��� �Madhy� �Pradesh, ��� �order ��o ����k �with � knowledged � �� � m���� � of � valid � knowledg� � (pramāṇa). � lay people and monks about the ethics and social cus- Th� qu� estio� of� om� ������� (� sarvajñatā) refers to man’s tom� �of �Digambar� ������. Proceeding from the theory ability ��o �g��� ��h� �righ� �kind �of �knowledg� ��� �order ��o � of ��h� d� ichotomy of� “w� ellbeing ���d ���beration”, I� ����rted � ������ ���beration. �I� �w�� ����mulated �by ��h� �Mīmāṃsāk� � my �research �with ��h� �question, �whether �����fi �form� � arguments, ���������y �oncerning ��h� ��o��� �whether ��h� � of � odified � bu������ � ��h�� � do � or � do � �o� �x � ��� � �� � -���� teachings of the tīrthaṅkaras �wer� ��rustworthy, ��o� �be- ism. � I � w�� � �ometim�� � �old � �h�� � ��formatio� � regarding � ing ��ubj�� ��o hum� �� ��rror, ��� ��m � ���� of� v� alid �ognitio� � ethics and religious is found in those manuals (cf. �Fujinag� �2006: �107-116). � acknowledged ���������y ��� ��our�� �of ����� �ritual. A� �fir�� �g���� ��h� �manu�� �o������ �of �many �����yti- Th�� �repor� ���m� ��o ��how �why ��h� �Uvāsayajjhayaṇa �� ������ �(German: �Begriffsreihen), ��.e. ��umer��� �group- (Skt. �Upāsakādhyayana), �� �manu�� �wr����� ��� ��h� �11th � ing� of� ��opics, wh� ich ��r� ����y-to-understand ���d ��o ����r� � century �by ��h� �Digambar� �monk �Vasunandin, ��� �� �good � by �heart. �Bu� ��h� ��o��� �of ��h� �manu�� ��r� ��o� �grouped � exam��� �of �� �heterogenou� ��our� �of �knowledg� ��bou� � �� � �umer��� � ����o�� � (sthāna) � or � divided � �� �hapter� � ���� �valu� ��ystem� ���d �rituals. �After �giving �� y�� no���� � or � ��r�� � (kāṇḍa). � Only � �� �om� � ����� �h� � �uthor � u��� � of ��h� �o������ �I � w� ��� h� ighligh� ��h� m� eaning of� ��h� g� enr� � verb �form� ��uch ��� �vocchāmi “I �w��� ��xplain” �(v. �480) � of ajjhayaṇa (study book,� �oncentratio� of� m� ind). V� asu- �� �“tex� �markers” ��� �order ��o ��how ��h�� �h� ��� �hanging � nandin’s Uvāsayajjhayaṇa �o������ �of �546 �ver��� ��� ��h� � th� ��opic. �My ��rgum��� ��� ��h�� ��h� �mater��� �w�� ���ruc- Āryā m� eter or� Gāhā� (� Skt. gāthā� ) ��� h�� � ����guag� Ardh� a- tured � with � regard � �o � onventio��� � �ubj��� � or � �o��� � Māgadhī. A� ccording ��o ��hubring �(1962: �81) ��h� �metre, � called anuyogas �(expositions) �(��� �Tab�� �1). �I� ��h� ��ro- � �����dardized �form �of ����� �Āryā, �w�� ���king ��h� ����� � posed � ��qu��� � �m����� � �� �h� � x�� t, � Dravyānuyog� � �� � of ��h� Ś� loka, wh� ich ��� �haracter���� for� ���� ���d �����ruc- th� ��xplanatio� �of ��h� ��ubstances, ��h� �doctr��� �of ��ou� � tiv� ���xts. � and ��on-, ���d ��h� ��r������� �of �motion, �rest, ����� � Also �know� �under ��h� ������ �Śrāvākācāra �(“Th� �Con- and ���me. �Caraṇānuyog� ������ ��mph���� �o� ��h� ���hics, � du� �for ��h� �Listener”), ��h� ���x� ��� �used ��� �� ��our� �of � th� �ru��� �of �onduct, ��h� ����g�� �of �restr���� ���d �renun- ritu�� �by ��om� �Digambar� �ommu������ ��� �North �India. � ciation, ���d ��rovid�� �mod��� �for ��h� ��urificatio� �of ��h� � Fir�� �ub � lished � �� � 1909, � �h� � x�� � � w�� � ritically � �dited � practitioner ��hrough �reading, �fasting, ���d �oncentration. � 1952 � by � Hīrālā� � ����. � Knowing � �h�� � �h�� � manu�� � w�� � The mokṣamārga ��deal, �for ��xample, �depicting ��h� �����y � studied by� �mo � nk� ���d ��dvanced ���ym�� ��oday, I� w� �� ��o� � �� ��ranscending �����r �ob������ ��uch ��� ��ossessiv����� � astonished ��o �find �ou� ��h�� �many �handwr����� �o���� �of � (parigraha) by taking the pledges prescribed for laity se- th�� ���x� ��r� ��reserved ��� h�� � �Bhaṇḍār� �of �North, �North � riously, �belong� ��o ��h�� ����gory, ��oo. �Prathamānuyoga, � W��� ���d �Centr�� �India, ��uch ��� �Delhi, �Indaur, ��halara- or � �rimary � �xposition, � �x������ � �h� � mytholog��� �g � �� � patan, Mumb� �� ���d K� aranj� (Ako� �� D� istrict) (� cf. Hīrā� lā� � and �o������ �of ��h� ���f� ���or��� �of ��h� ���xty-thr�� ����ustri- 1926, �No. �7931-7934, �Velankar �1944: �56). �Wh�� �Er��� � ou� ���rsonag�� (� śalākāpuruṣa) and the hagiographies of Leum��� �w�� �ollecting �manuscr���� �for �h�� �Āvaśyaka the tīrthaṅkaras. �Vasunand�� �do�� ��o� �mak� �u�� �of ���y � Studien, �� �opy w� �� ����� ��o Euro� �� ���d ��� ��ow ��reserved � stories, �bu� ��� �v.388 �h� �mentio�� �Prathamānuyog� �with � in the “Strasbourg Collection of Digambara Manu- r����� ��o �� �donor �who ��hould �know ��h� ���or��� �of ��h� � scripts” �(cf. Tr� ipāṭhī �1975: �229, �No. �171, �Folio �79). � gr��� �men, ��.e. �Purāṇ� ���ories. �Karaṇānuyog� ��x������ � th� � universe, � �on-universe, � �heor��� � of � �umbering � ��d � 1. Contents of Vasunandin’s Uvāsayajjhayaṇa differ��� � ��ulatio�� � regarding � karm� � ��d � ��beration. � Besid�� �describing ��h� �fru��� �of ��v�� �deed� ��� ��uffering � Vasunandin’� � manu�� � (vv.4-10) � �ffirm� � ���� � ������- in the gatis, ��.e. �futur� ���ves, ���d ��h� �fru��� �of �giving ���d � mology ��� ��h� �foundatio� �of ��h� �broader �������fi �field � transmissio� �(dāna) ���d �worsh�� �(pūjā) ��� �� �very �on- of ��og��� r� easoning ���w � ��� ��� ��h� b� ���� for� r� igh� k� nowl- densed �form, ��h� ��uthor �do�� ��o� ��xpound ��h� �o������ � edg� � ���ding � �o � ��beration. � Th� �u � thor � hold� � �h�� � �h� � of karaṇā ��� �detail. �I� ��h� �praśasti (� �����gyr� ����rip- tion or colophon used in a manuscript) longer compos- 1 �I �hav� ��h� ������ur� ��o ��hank �Manish �Modi, �Nish� �����, �Nikunj �����, � ites, ���umeratio�� ���d ��onger �metr�� ��r� �used. �Th� ��u- Subodh �Kumar �����, ������dr� �����, ��.L.Jain, �Kush�� �Narendr� �����, � thor ������u � � ��h� ���m�� of� h� �� ��raditio� (Ku� ndakund� ���d � Aru� ��hah ���d �Mayank ��. ��hah �for ��heir �h��� ��� �organising �my ��rip. � h�� ����her� �Nayanand� ���d �Nemicandra). �Becau�� ��vi- 2 �I �had ��h� �h��� ��o �discu�� �������of � ��h� ��o�� �of �“���� �Law” �dur- d��� �for ��h� �old �(Śvetāmbara) ��raditio� �know� ��o �hav� � ing the 9th Jaina Studies Workshop 2007 at the School of Oriental b��� ��rranged ��� �ou���� (� Schubring 1962:77-78)� ��� ��o� � Stud��� �wher� �I �delivered �� �����r �o� �”Th� �Meaning �of �Possessiv����� � found ���V � asunandin’� m� anual, ��h�� r� esult, ���my � o� pinion, � (parigraha) in Digambara Literature and the Search for a Strange corrobor���� �w��� �with ��h� �omparatively ����� ��rend �of � Manuscr��� �of ���mantabhadra”. histor��� �writing� ��� �India, ��.e. �Kṣemendr� �(11th ����.) � Rājataraṅginī 3 Th� � �manu�� �w�� �recently �reprinted �by �Hindī �Granth �Kāryālay �with � and by �Kalhaṇ� �(12th ����ury).(Tab�� 1.)� much �omplementary �mater��� ��� �Prakr�� ���d �Hindī. �(Vasunandi- Śrāvakācāra. �Ed. �by �Bhāgacandr� ����� ���d V� imalakumār� ���uṃrayā � with ��H � ind� Tr� anslatio� �of �Ācāry� ��unilsāgara. �Mumbai: �2006. �

30 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

Table 1 Contents of Vasunandin’s Uvāsakajjhayaṇa

Sections (No. of Gāthās) Category Subsections (Style) Blessings (maṅgala) (1-3)

Eleven States (sthāna) (4-5) Dravyānuyoga Seven Principles: Approved Means of Knowledge (pramāṇa)(6-10) Soul and Non-Soul Exposition of the Principles of Seven Inflow of Karma Principles () (11-47) Bondage Orthodoxy: Eight Limbs (48-58) Hinderance of Karma Shedding of Karma Liberation Seven Vices (vyasana) Karaṇānuyoga Birth-Categories: Faults and Evil (59-133) Hell Beings Four Different Births of the Soul (caturgati) World of Animals Suffering in Different Birth-Categories Human World (134-204) World of Gods

First and Second Stage (of eleven pratimās): Caranāṇuyoga Taking the Vows: Orthodoxy (darśanapratimā) Small and Supplementary Vows Taking the Vows (vratapratimā) Vows of Spiritual Exercises Giving (dāna) (205-270) Rules of Giving and Transmission: Different Recipients Donor Rules of Giving Objects to be Given Result of Giving

Stages 3-11 (pratimās) Fasting to Death Refrain from: Equanimity Possessiveness, Business, Sexual Activities Purifcation on the Parvan Days Consuming Something Which Contains Life Taking Pure Food (271-313) Refrain from Taking Life Service to the (vaiyavṛttya) Discipline Mortifcations of the Body (kāyakleśa) (314-381) Almsgiving by the Laity Physical Service to Members of the Saṇgha Rules of Fasting

Worship of the Jina, Arhat, Teacher, Scripture Śāstra /Praśasti Worship with Respect to Nomenclature, Sub- (pūjāvidhāna) (Nikṣepa Style) stance-Potential, Field, Time, Essence; Installation (pratiṣṭhā) of a Jina Image or Statue The Donor or Sponsor is Identifed with the Aspects of Worship God Indra, Consecration of Ritual Objects; , Objects of Concentration (dhyāna) Concentration is Identifed with Worship; (382-480) Imagined Objects, Sacred Syllables, Images or , Intrinsic Forms or Nature of the Jina.

Results of the Pious Deeds of the Laity Karaṇānuyoga Results of Worship: (śrāvakadharmaphala) (481-518) Worship is Identifed with Giving in Respect Stages of the Destruction of of the Results (kṣapakaśreṇi) (519-539) Eliminating the Passions Stoppage of Activity Qualities of Perfected

Vasunandin’s Praśasti (540-546) (Prasaśti)

31 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

The Meaning of ajjhayaṇa The ajjhayaṇa ��� �������, �with ��riptur�� � knowledge, ��� ��h� �knower �who ��� ��������v� �(to � Th� � ����� � of � �h� � manual, � Uvāsayajjhayaṇa, � ����rally � th� �knowledg� �of ajjhayaṇa� ). �[...] �Ajjhayaṇa “lecture” �or �“study �[book] �(ajjhayaṇa) �for ��h� ���rv���� � �� �������, �withou� ��riptur�� k� nowledge, of ��h� ������� �(uvāsaya)”, ��� �mentioned �by ��h� ��uthor � �� �[...]:Concentratio� �of �mind � �� ��h� ���x� (v.� 389)� ���d h� �� praśasti� (v.� 544).� Th� � ��r���� � (ajjhappassāṇayanam), ������uatio� �of ��h� � meaning and function of this kind of scripture is not de- accumulated karmans, �(and) ��on-accumulatio� � fined �by ��h� ��uthor, �bu� �h� ����m� ��o �hav� �used ��h� ���rm � of ���w �(karmans) �[...,] ��herefor� �(th� ����hers) � ajjhayaṇa �(Skt. �ādhyayana) as a synonym of sutta �(Skt. � desire ajjhayaṇa �[...] �(w. �539-546). � � sūtra), ��hread� of� ���hor���� ru� les, or� sattha (� Skt. śāstra� ), � science. � To � demonstr��� �h � is, � I � w��� � ��� �wo � �xplana- Only ��hr�� �Digambar� �work� ��r� �know� �under ��h� � tions of ajjhayaṇa, �o�� ��roduced �by ��h� �Digambar� ���d � title Upāsakādhyayana: Samantabhadra’s small manual o�� � by � �h� � Śvetāmbar� � �radition. �According �o � � Upad- Ratnakaraṇḍaśrāvakācāra �(5-6th �CE), ��omadevasūri’� � hye in the introduction of Kattigeyāṇuppekkhā �(pp.6-8) � extr�� � �� � h�� � �oem � Yaśastilakacampū � (10th � CE), � ��d � svajjhāya “� study of� ��ripture” ���d aṇuppekkhā� “ponder- Vasunandin’� � manu�� � (cf. �Velankar � 1944: � 56, �Willam� � ing �o� �wh�� �o�� �h�� ����rnt” �(with �� �oncentrated �mind) � 1963: �21, �25). �A � ccording ��o ��hubring �(1962: �85-125), � ar� ��wo form� � of� ��hedding ��h� karma� nijjarā (� nirjarā) by th�� ��y�� of� ���x� w� �� ��rev����� ���ready ��� ��h� ���rly form� - inter��� � ������ � (). � I� �h � � � Śvetāmbar� � ��o���� � ativ� ����g� �of ����� �����rature, ��� ���r� �of ��h� �Śvetāmbar� � Aṇuogaddārāim ajjhayaṇa �� � defined � �ording � �o � �h� � canon, �which ��� �b� ���udied �with ��hr�� ��y��� �of ��x���� � nikkheva (Skt. nikṣepa) principle: commentaries, ��h� �Nijjutti, �Cuṇṇ� ���d �Vṛ��� �or �Ṭīkā. A� l- though �h � � � ��x�� � �����d � ��� �o����� � of � ����o� � or � ��ud��� � (ajjhayaṇa), �only ��h� �first, �Uttarajjhayā, ��how� �� �refer- Ajjhayaṇa ��� ��ubstance-potential, �with ��rip- ��� � �o � �h� � genr� � �� � ��� � �����. �Th� � fir�� � ��d � ��ond � �x- tur�� �knowledge, ��� �oncerned �with �� ���rso� � amples are important early chrestomathies characterised by �whom ��h� ajjhayaṇa� treatise has been stud by � � mixed � variety � of � ���hism, � r�� ables, � dialogu�� � ied, �retained �(�� �mind), �ontrolled, �measured � and short introductions to the karma and soul theories [...]. �Ajjhayaṇa ��� ��ubstance-potential, �withou� � for �mendicants. �Th� ��hird ���x� �o������ �of ���or��� �for ���- scriptur�� �knowledge, ��� �[...the] �body �of ��h� � ity, ���d ��h� ���x� �fiv� ��r� ���or��� �ompiled �for ��u�� ���d � knower, �[...the] �body �of ��h� �om������ ���rson, � monks. �Th� ����� �o�� ��� ��� �old ���d �outstanding �ompi- [and substance] other than the body of the latio� �of ��h� ������ �of �divination, ��� ������dix �of ��h� � knower ���d ��h� �body �of ��h� �om������ ���rso� � canon, �with �mainly ������ �of ����rs, ����mals, �food, �family � [...e.g.] �which �w�� �wr����� �o� ����f ���d ��� �book � names, ��rofessions, �dreams, ���d �other ���h���� ���rms. � (w.535). � � To �my v� iew ��h��� ���x�� �repr����� o� ld ��xpositio�� �o� �dif- fer��� ��ubj��� �for �ontemplation, �which �orrespond ��o � the anuyoga �genr�� �of ��h� �Digambar� ��riptures.

Table 2 Examples of ajjhayaṇas as Parts of the Śvetāmbara Scriptures (According to Schubring 1962: 85-125) Text Nijjutti Cuṇṇi/ Bhāsa Vṛtti/Ṭīkā

Dasaveyāliya Nijjutti Cuṇṇi ’s Śiṣyabodhinī (Mūlasutta)

Uttarajjhayā Nijjutti Cuṇṇi (Mūlasutta)

Uvāsayadasāo (Not Available) (Not Available) Śāntisūri, Devendra, Didactic Stories Lakṣmī- Vivaraṇa of Abhayadeva Nirayāvaliyāo (Not Available) (Not Available) Candrasūri Kappavaḍiṃsiyāo Didactic Stories Pupphiyāo Pupphacūlāo Vaṇhidasāo

Aṅgavijjā (Not Available) (Not Available) (Not Available) Compilation of Practical Science

32 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

Vasunand�� ����m� ��o �follow ��wo �differ��� ����gor��� � Velankar, �Har� �Damodar. �Jinaratnakośa. A� A� lpha- of �y � stematisatio� � of � �h� � ��o� � (siddhānta). � Th� � fir�� � b����� ���gister �of �����Work � � ���d Au� thors. Vo� l. �I. � category ��� ��h� �divisio� �of ��riptur�� ����o �four �groups, � Poona: �Bhandarkar �Or������ ���r��� ������rch � the anuyogas. � Th� � ��ond � ���gory � �� �h� � d�������� � Institu�� �1944. � techniqu� �of �nikkheva �(Skt. �nikṣepa), ��� �which �� �word � �� � �xamined � under � �r���� � viewpoints. � ����fi � form� � Wiley, �Kr���� �Lynn. Historical� Dictionary of Jainism. � of �odified �bu������ ���hics, �which �differ �from �“Hindu” � Lanham, �Maryland/ Toro� nto �2004, ��h� ���recrow � counterparts, ��.e. �manu��� ��uch ��� ��h� �Gṛhyasūtras and Press. �(Histor��� �Dictionar��� �of �����gions, �Philoso- Dharmaśāstras, � �r� � �o� � found � �� � our � manual. �Though � phies, ���d �Movem���� 53).� th� ��uthor �do�� ��o� ��x����� ��h� ���rm �anuyoga and does no� � omm��� � o� � �h� � o������ � of � �h� � ���gories, � �� �h� � Williams, ��obert. Jaina� . �Oxford �University � way h� � ���ructur�� h� �� m� aterial, ��� ���obv � iou� ��h�� h� � ����- Pr��� �1963. � � es the centre of his interest not in the ritual of the mar- ried � householder, � bu� � �� �h� � ���f-study � ��d � meditatio� � o� ��h� �fundam��� �of ����� �knowledg� ���d �belief ��ystem � (vv. �6-204). �

Signe Kirde teaches Sanskrit at the Institute of Asian and Oriental Studies, Friedrich Wilhelms University, Bonn. Her current research focuses on Jain econom- ics, and as depicted in the manuals of the Digambara Jains.

References

Aṇuogaddārāiṃ. �English Tr� anslation. �by T� aik�� � Hanaki. V� aishali, �Muzaffarpur. �1970. (Prakr�� �����I � nstitu�� ������rch �Publicatio�� ���ries).

Fujinag� ����. �“Why �mu�� ��her� �b� ��� �Om������� ��� � Signe Kirde Jainism?", ���: Jaina� History and Culture. Disputes and Dialogues. �Ed. �P. �Flügel. �London/ �New York� � 2006, �107-116. Jina in “kāyotsarga ��osition”. �Thuvonj� �Tem- Hiralal, ���� �Bahadur. �Catalogue of Sanskrit and ��� �Complex, A� soknagar, �Madhy� �Pradesh. � Vaśundand�� � �ugg���� � for � �h� � ����y � regular � Prakrit Manuscripts in the Central Provinces meditatio� �wh��� �����ding ��� ��bandonm��� �of � and Berar. � �1926. the body like a muni, �which �h���� ��o �develo� � th� �virtu� �of ��on-possessio� �(aparigraha). Jaini, ��. �L. �Introduction, Gommaṭasāra. Jīvakāṇḍa. By �Nemichandr� ���ddhā��� �Chakravartī. �(Th� ��oul). � Ed. �with �Introduction, Tr� anslatio� ���d �Commentary � by ��.L.����� ��������d �by ������ �Prasad� ���. Aj� itashram, � Lucknow �1927. �(The Sacred Books of the Jainas, � Vol. V).� �

Schubring, W� alther. �The Doctrine of the Jainas. � Described after the Old Sources. Translated from the Revised �Germ�� �Editio� �by Wo� lfgang �Beurlen. � Delhi: �Mo����� �Banarsid��� � �1962. �

Tripāṭhī, �Candrabhā� �(comp.). Catalogue� of the Jaina Manuscripts at Strasbourg. �Leiden: �E.J. �Br��� 1975.� �

Upadhy� �“Introduction”. �Kārttikeyānuprekṣā � (Kattigeyāṇuppekkhā), A.N.� ��vāmikumāra. An� Early Signe Kirde Treatise on Jaina Doctrines, Especially Anuprekṣās. The Prākrit Text Critically �Edited �by A.N.� �Upadhye. � Āgā� �1960 �(Śrīmad ��ājachandr� ������Śā � stramālā). Śrutadevatā. � Thuvonj� � Tem��� � Complex, � Asoknagar, � Madhy� � Pradesh. � I� � v.391, � Vasunandi-Śrāvakācāra. By V� asunandin. W� ith �Hind� � Vaśunand�� � �roclaim� �h � �� � ��rasvatī � Devī � Translatio� �Edited �by �Hīrālā� �����. �Kāśī: � should � b� � worshipped � ��h � � � Godd��� � of � Scripture, � “who�� � ��mb� � �r� � �h� � ��r�� � ��d � Bhāratīy� ��ñānapīth, �1952. subsectio�� �of ��h� �Canon, �who�� �mark �o� ��h� � forehead � �� � orthodoxy, � who�� � dr��� � �� �ur� � conduct, � who�� � ornam���� � �r� � �h� � four���� � Pūrvas”. �

33 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

Transmission of Religious and Moral Contents in Jain Narrative Literature

Anna Aurelia Esposito ______he transmission of true doctrine is much more stressed in Jainism than in most other religious tra- dTitio�� �– �becau�� �only �d��� �knowledg� �of ��ru� �doctr��� � lead� ��o r� igh� �ondu� ���d ��ventually ��o ��h� ����h of� ����va- tion. ���ory-telling w� �� ���way� �onsidered ��� ��d��� m� ���� � for the transmission of moral and religious teachings in � �form, �which ��� �b� �both ������y �understandab�� ���d ��b- sorbing. No� � ���dentally w� � ow� � ���������y ��o ��h� ������ �� � hug� ��mou�� of� ���vely ���d �����rtaining ���or��� w� ith mor� � � or ����� �oncealed m� essag�� for� ��h� ��udience. Ex� actly ��h�� � form �of �doctr���� �ommunication, �with ���� �rhetor��� ���d � dramaturg� ���rategies, �I ��m ��������g ��o ���vestig��� �with � P ete r � F l üg el particular � �������o� � �o � �h� � old��� � �reserved � ��x� � of � ���� � narrativ� �����ratur� �– ��h� Vasudevahiṇḍi� . The Vasudevahiṇḍi, � ompiled � �round � 400 � A.D. � by � Saṅghadāsagaṇi, � w�� � �dited � �� � 1930-31 � by � Caturvijay � �� � discour��� � ��d � did��� � dialogues, � of��� � ����rmin- Mu�� � ��d � Punyavijay � Mu�� � o� � �h� � �vid��� � of � �welv� � gled �with �����gor��� ���d ���rables. �I� ��h� �Vasudevahiṇḍi manuscripts. I� � b� elong� ��o ��h� �����rary ��raditio� �onnected � w� �find �discussio�� �oncerning ��h� ��x������ �of ��h� ��ou� � to ��h� ��ow ��o�� �Bṛhatkathā �of �Guṇāḍhya. Th� � �m��� ���ory � [Vh. 202.15-203.8],� ��h� r� elationsh�� b� etw��� prakṛti� and of the Vasudevahiṇḍi ��� �����red ��round ��h� ��dventur�� of� � puruṣa �[Vh. �360.20-361.21], ��xplanatio�� �related ��o ��h� � King �Vasudeva, ��h� �father �of �Kaṇh� �(Kṛṣṇa), �who ��� ��h� � vow� �of �monk� ���d ���ym�� �[aṇuvratas �Vh. �294.19-22, � last vāsudeva of� ��h� ��r����� wor� ld ��ge. V� asudeva’� d� eed� � mahāvratas �Vh. �266.18-267.4], ���d ��o �on. �I� ��h� �fram� � ar� � furthermor� � �mbedded � �� � �onversatio� � betw��� � story of the Vasudevahiṇḍi w� � m� ��� ���mbu, ��m � erchant’� � ���� � Mahāvīr� � ��d � King � ��ṇ�� � (th� � Bimbisar� � of � Bud- son, � who�� � ����ratio� � �� �o � renou�� � �h� � world. � I� � �h� � dh��� � x�� ts), � �h�� � �� � reported � by � Mahāvīra’� � gaṇadhara nigh� �befor� �h�� �renounciation, �h� ���ounter� �Pabhava, �� � Suhamm� �(Sudharma) ��o �king �Koṇ�� �(named �Ajātasattu � pr��� who� h� ad go� �� ����ray ���d h� ad ju� �� brok� �� ����o ���m- �� �Buddh��� ��ources). �A� �w� ��� ����, ��h� �Vasudevahiṇḍi bu’� �house. A� �did��� �dialogu� �����rrupted �by ��umerou� � links the Bṛhatkathā-traditio� �both �with ��h� ����� �world � parab��� ���d ������ ��volv�� �betw��� ��h� ��wo, ���d ��� �day- history � d�� � with � oncr��� � histor��� � m�� e. � Although � break bo� th ���mbu ���d ��h� ��r��� r� enou�� ��h� wor� ld. Th� � � chronologically � very � �o�� �o � � �h� � Bṛhatkathā, � �h� � literary ���d ��hilosophical-religiou� �background �of ��h��� � Vasudevahiṇḍi ��� �for ���ver�� �reaso�� ������r �know� ��h�� � did��� �discour��� ��� �b� ����uminated �by ���king, �for ��x- th� �Hindu ���x�� �belonging ��o ��h�� ��raditio� �(e.g. ��omade- ample, � which � haracter � giv�� �h � � � �xplanatio� � or � hold� � va’s Kathasaritsāgara). �Fir�� �of ����, ��h�� ��� ��rtainly �du� � th� ���rmons. �Furthermore, �o�� �mu�� ���k �which �kind �of � to ���� �difficu�� ������bility. �Of ��h�� �work, �wr����� ��� ��� � addr����� ��hey ���m ��o �reach, �or �how ��r� ��hey �ollocated � old ���y�� of� ������-Māhārāṣṭrī, w� � ������h � av� o� nly o� �� �om- with�� ��h� ���xt. A� � �� o�� ��� of� �omparison: ���f � ar ���I � k� now, � ����� � �ranslatio� � ���o � Gujar��� � by � ���desara, � �ublished � such � �hilosophical-religiou� � discour��� � �r� �om  pletely � 1946. �Only ��bou� �half �of ���� �370 ���g�� �wer� ��ranslated � lacking in tradition of the Bṛhatkathā. into �English �by ���gadish �Chandr� ����� ��� �1977. �Besides, � T���� �oncerned �with �w��� �or �unw��� �ondu� ���d ���� � although �h � � � �ditor� � gav� � ��ver�� � var���� � reading� � d�� � consequ���� ��r� ��y���� �for �Ind��� ���rrativ� �����rature. � tried ��o ��mend��� �orru�� ������ges, ��h� ���x� ��� �far �from � Th� ���uliarity �of ����� ���rrativ� �����ratur� ����� ��� ���� �reli- being ������factory. �Furthermore, �w� ��o����� ��o �om����� � ��� �o� ���or��� ��bou� �former ��x������� ��h�� ��r�� �har- summary of the Vasudevahiṇḍi. For� ��h��� r� easons, ��hol- acters’ � former ���v�� � back � over � ��ver�� �rebirth� ��� �order � ar� �hav� ����� ��ow ��o �overview �of ���� ����o � ntents. ���udy- to ��x����� ��h��� �haracters’ ��r����� ��ositio� ��� ���f� ���d � ing ��h�� work� ���fur � ther �omplicated ��hrough �� ���uliarity � society. For� ��xample, ��h� mo� nk ����, who� h� ad ob� tained � commo� ��o ����rly ���� �Ind��� ���rrativ� �����rature, ��h� ��m- omniscience, ��xplained �why ��h� �merchant’� ��o� ��āhug� � bedding of� ���or��� w� ith�� ���or��� ����uding fur� ther ���or��� � w�� mu� �� [Vh.� 86.27-89.12]:� I� � ��form � er ���f� ��āhug� h� ad � – �u� ��o ����� �differ��� ���rrativ� ���yer� ��ometim�� ����� �up. � b��� ��gr � eedy m� erchant. Af� ter h� �� d� eath h� � w� �� r� ebor� ��� � Therefore, ��h� fir� �� ���m of� my� ��roject, gr� anted by� ��h� G� er- � ���g �– �� �ju�� �reward �for ���� �h�� �deeds. �Bu� ��� �h�� ���f� ��� �� � m�� ������rch Fou� ndation, w� ��� b� � �� �om����� d� escriptio� � pig �h� �w�� ��or� ��o ������ �by �wild �dogs. �H� �died, �under- of the contents of the Vasudevahiṇḍi, � �ogether � with � �� � standably ���ough, �furiou� ��� ��h� �dogs. A� � �� o� nsequ��� � analy��� �of ���� �differ��� ���rrativ� ���yers. of ��h��� �feeling� �of �rag� �h� �w�� ��g��� �bor� ��� ��� ����m�� � Th� ���ond ���d ����r�� �oncer� �of �my ��roj�� ���, ��� � – ��h�� ���m� ��� �� ����ke. �H�� �f��� ��� �� ����k� �w�� ��o �bet- mentioned ��bove, ��h� ���vestigatio� �of ��h� �differ��� ���rat- ter �– �h� �w�� �b����� ��o �death �by �� �grou� �of �m�� ��fter �h� � eg��� �hrough � � which � religiou� � ��d � mor�� � o������ � �r� � crawled ����o �� �house. �Bu� ��h�� ���me, ����� �h� �had �under- conveyed � �� �h� � Vasudevahiṇḍi. � Th� � mo�� � obviou� � -�� stood � h�� � murderers’ � motive, � h� � developed � �o � hostility � ������ �of �����ructio� ��r� ��rovided ��hrough ��hilosophi- toward� ��hem ���d �died ��� �� �onditio� �of �m����� �����. �

34 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

Th�� ���d ��o ��h� b� ��� of� ���� x�� istences, ��h� b� irth ��� ��hum � �� � being. �Nevertheless, �h�� ���f� ��� �� �hum�� �being �w�� ��o� � New easy: �Being ������ �� ��m��� �hild �h� �remembered �h�� �former � liv�� ���d �realized ��h�� �h�� �father �of ��h� ��r����� ���f� �had � Prakrit Course b��� h� �� ��o� ���h � �� form� er ���f� ��� ��gr � eedy m� erchant. A� � �� � at SOAS consequ��� �of ��h�� ��hocking �fact, �h� �becam� �mute. Ther� ��r� ��umerou� ���or��� �of ��h�� �kind �– ���or��� ���- A� ��OAS, �reearch �o� �Prakr�� �h�� �b��� � wrapped � �� � ��or��� � ����rwov�� � with � mor� � ��ories. � Th� � � ��ong ��radition, �with �well-know� ��holar� � strategy �of �building �u� ��uccessiv� ���rrativ� ���yer� ����- lik� ���r �����h Tur� ner, ��oh� �Brough, ��ober� W� illiam� ���d � Padmanabh ������. W� � ��r� �������d ��o �ontinu� ��h�� ��raditio� � b��� � �h� � �uthor � �o � ����r� � mor� � �xamples, � mor� � �hilo- with ��wo ���w �half-u��� �our��� ��� �Prakrit. soph��� ���d �did��� �mater��� �����d� �o�� �fram� ���ory. To� � Th� � fir�� � of � �h� � ��w � half-u��� �our  ��� � w��� � �rovid� � �� � giv� �� ����rer ��dea, I� w� ��� ��ow �����y�� ��om� ���yer� of� ��h� � introductio� ��o ��h� ����gu���� ���ructur� �of �Prakrit, �omple- Vasudevahiṇḍi: mented � with �om � � � b��� � grammar �x � ercises. �Th�� � w��� � b� � O�� �day �King �Koṇ�� �v����� ��h� ����� �monk ��uhamma, � accompanied �by ��h� ���udy �of ��xtr��� �from ��h� ����� ���rra- who h� �� ��������d om� ������� (fir� �� ���yer). I� � ��h� �our�� of� � tiv� ���x� Maṇipaticarita� , wh� ich �ompr���� v� er��� ���bo � th ��h� � their �onversatio� ��uhamm� ������ �Koṇ�� ��bou� ��� ���rlier � ������� �Māhārāshtr� ���d �old �Māgadhī �d������ �of �Prakrit. � meeting b� etw��� �����M � ahāvīr� ���d K� ing ���ṇia, Koṇ� ia’� � Th�� ����roductory �our�� �w��� �b� �onducted ��� �rom�� ��rans- father � (second � ��yer). � During � �h�� � meeting � Mahāvīr� � literation, ��� �used ��� h�� � �mor� �r����� ���d ������factory ��di- tio�� of� ����� ���xts. I� � do� �� ��o� ��resuppo�� ���y k� nowledg� of� � told ���ṇ�� ��h� ���ory �of �King V� asudeva’� �grandso�� �(third � � ��re-moder� �Ind��� ����guage. � layer). �I� ��h� �our�� �of ��h�� ���rration, V� asudev� �recou��� � Th� ���ond �half-u��� �our�� ��� �designed �for ��ho�� �who � h�� �ow� ��dventur�� ��o �h�� �grandso�� �(fourth ���yer). �Fur- w��� ��o �d����� ��heir �understanding �of �Prakr�� ���d ��o �on- thermore, �Vasudeva’� ���rratio� ��� �����rspersed �with �y�� � tinu� r� eading Pr� akr�� ���x�� ��� ��h� or� iginal. For� ���ud���� from� � mor� ���ories. �For ��xample, ��� �old �wom�� �of ��ow �birth � � � ���� � background � or � with � �� � ����r��� � �� �h� � religio� � �h� � o�� � �old � him �h � � � ��ory � of � ���� � Usabh� � (Ṛṣabha): � H�� � emph���� �w��� �b� �o� ��xcer��� �from ��h� ����� ��riptur�� ���d � birth, ���f� ���d r� enunciation, ���d h� �� fir� �� b� egging for� ���m� � narrativ� �����rature, �bu� �� ���r� �of ��h� ����� ���m� �w��� ����o �b� � (fifth ���yer). I� � ��h�� ���r��� of� ��h� ���rrative, ������rs-by ���k � dedicated to other important contributions of Prakrit to clas- Sijjaṃ�� �(Śreyāṃsa), �Usabha’� �fir�� �donor ���d �h�� �om- ���� �Ind��� �ulture, ��uch ��� ����riptio�� ���d �our� ��oetry. � Th� �our�� �w��� ��ormally �b� �oncerned �with �mater��� ��vail- panio� ��hroughou� �many ���ves, �how �h� �knew �wh�� ���m� � ab�� ��� �rom�� ��ransliteration. to g� ive. ���jjaṃ�� ��h�� h� �� o� ccasio� ��o r� ����� h� �� ���d U� sa- Although ��h��� �our��� ��r� ��xamined wh� �� ���k�� ��� ���r� � bha’� form� er b� irths: Th� eir b� irth ��� ��w��� (� sixth ���yer) ���d � of �� �BA �or �MA �degr�� ��rogramme, ��hey �may �b� ����o �use- their �memory �of �being �bor� ��� h�� � �god �Laliyaṃga, ���d � fu� �for �research ���ud���� �who�� ��o�� ��� �oncerned �with ��h� � h�� w� if� ���yaṃpabhā (� seventh ���yer). Th� � god� L� aliyaṃg� � history, �ulture, �or �religiou� �developm��� �of ��h� ���m�� ��h�� � �� � �ur� � remember� � h�� � former � birth � �� � King � Mahāb��� � produced �docum���� �wr����� ���Pr � akrit. [eighth ���yer], �during �which �� �friend ��old �him �� ���r��� �of � mor�� ���or��� [� ninth ���yer]. A� nd ����of � ��h��� d� iffer��� ���y- For �mor� ���formation, ������� ����h �� � ��r���� �o� ���g� �48 �of � er� ��r� �����rspersed w� ith fur� ther ���rables, ���rratives, ���d � th�� ����ue. tales. �Th� ����� ��xam��� ��how� �how �difficu�� ��� ��� �b� ��� � som� ����� ��o fo� llow ��h� d� iffer��� ���yer� of� ��h� ���ories. A� � � tim�� ��h� �m��� ���ory �(th� ��dventur�� �of �Vasudeva) ��� ���- References: terrupted �by ������g�� �omprehending �u� ��o �38 ���ges, ��� � for ��xam��� ��� ��h� ���rratio� �of ����� ������’� �former �birth� � Caturvijay �Muni; �Punyavijay �Mu�� �(eds.). �[1930-31] � [Vh. �310.5-348.9]. � 1989. �Vasudevahiṇḍī. �: �Gujar�� ���hity� � To ��um �up, ��� �my �urr��� �research, �of �which �I �hav� � Akadami. presented �her� �only ��� �overview, �I ��m ���vestigating ��h� � strateg��� �hrough � � which � religiou� � ��d � mor�� �o  ������ � Jain, ���gdish �Chandra. �1977. The� Vasudevahiṇḍi. An ar� � �ransmitted � �� � ���� ���rrativ� � ����rature. � Using �h � � � Auth���� V� ersio� �of ��h� �Bṛhatkathā. W� ith � Vasudevahiṇḍi �of ���ṅghadāsa, ��h� ���r����� �work �of ��h�� � Selected Translations Compared to the genre, ��� �� ����rting ��oint, �I �w��� �����r ��xam��� �other ��m- Bṛhatkathāślokasaṅgraha, �Kathāsaritsāgara, � por���� ���x�� �of ����� ���rrativ� �����rature. A� � �� �further ����� � Bṛhatkathāmañjarī ���d ��om� �Impor���� ������Work � s, � I �w��� ��xtend �my �research ��o �Hindu ���d �Buddh��� ���rra- Including ��h� �Unpublished �Majjhimakhaṇḍ� ���d � tiv� �����rature. With �Extensiv� �Notes, �Introduction, ���d A� ppendices. � : �L. �D. �Institu�� of� �Indology �(L. �D. ���r��� � Anna Aurelia Esposito is lecturer in Indology at the Uni- 59). versity of Würzburg, Germany. She is currently working on a project granted by the German Research Founda- Sandesara, �Bhog���� ���ychandbhai. �1946. � tion (DFG) on the transmission of religious and moral Vasudevahiṇḍī. �: ��hr� �����A � tmanand � contents in Jain narrative literature. Sabha. �

35 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

ESRC Funded Research Project on the Role and Practice of Jainism Among Young Jains in the UK and US

Bindi Shah ______uestio�� � �bou� � �h� � ��flu��� � of � religiou� � �r����� � A� �� o�� ciologist, I� ���������� ��h�� ��h�� qu� alitativ� ���udy � and ��d�������� �o� ��ro����� �of �����gration, ��v� ���r- o� �young ������ �w��� �hav� ���ver�� ��heor����� ���d ��olicy � ticipatiQ on, ���d ����zensh�� ��mong ��h� �hildr�� ���d gr� and- implications: childr�� of� ��mmigrants, ��h� ���ond ���d ��hird g� enerations, � First, ��h�� ���udy �w��� ��hed ���gh� �o� ��h� �ro�� �of �religiou� � hav� �becom� �highly ���r������ ��� h�� � �USA ���d �UK ��� ��h� � pr����� ���d �valu�� ��� h�� aping ��dentities, �belonging ���d � aftermath of� ��h� ��rag� ��v���� o� � ������mber 11,� 2001� ���d � citizensh�� � �mong � ��ond � ��d � �hird � generatio� � �outh � July �7, �2005. �Moreover, �r���� ��holarsh�� ��� ��h��� ��wo � A����� ��� ��wo �multi-eth�� �ountries. countries has demonstrated both the continued central- Second, r� ���� ��opular ���d ��olicy, ���d ��v�� ���demic, � ity of religious practices and identities among immigrant discussio�� ��� h�� � �UK �ontinu� ��o �b� �overshadowed �by � groups, ���d ��h� ��ransformatio�� ��h�� ��r� �occurring ��� ��m- concer� �over � ���d �mobilizatio� ��mong �Muslim� ��� � migr��� � religiou� � ������utions. � British � ���hropolog��� � general. �Th�� ��roj�� �w��� �broad�� ��h��� �discussio�� ���d � scholarship has also focused on the role of religion and contribute to our understanding of the social processes religiou� � �d�������� � �mong � �h� � hildr�� � of �mm � igrants, � occurring ��� ���other ���hno-religiou� �group. �����fically, � though � research � o� � �h� � ��ond-generatio� � �� �h� � USA � th� ���udy w� ��� ��hed ���gh� o� � wh� ether ��outh A� ���� ������ ��� � h�� ���rgely ���glected r� eligion. How� ever, mu� ch of� ��h�� r� e- th� �UK ���d �USA, �who ������r ��o �b� ��ocio-economically � search �o� ��h� �hildr�� �of ��mmigr���� �do�� ��o� ��xam��� � integrated, ��r� ����o m� arked ou� � ���d � iffer��� ���d ‘o� ther’ or� � how r� eligio� ��h���� ��ro����� of� �����gration, ��v� ���rtic- whether �mater��� ����usio� ���rallels/f��������� ��ymbo�� � ipation, ���d ��otio�� �of �belonging ���d ����zensh�� ��mong � form� �of ����usion. � th� ���ond ���d ��hird �generatio�� �(though ��her� ��r� ��om� � Third, � �mpor���� � omparativ� � ����o�� � w��� �m � erg� � r���� ��xceptions). from ��h� �research ��� ��h� ���� ���udy �ountr��� �hav� �b��� � The resurgence of Jainism in the 1990s among the cho��� ��o �refl�� �differ���� ���d ���milar����� ��� ��o������ � childr�� �of ��outh A� ���� ��mmigr���� ��� ��h� �UK ���d �USA � and �ultur�� ���vironments. �Th� �UK ���d �USA �both �hav� � provid�� ���o � pportunity ��o ��ursu� qu� estio�� o� � ��h� ro� �� of� � established formal commitments to the protection of reli- religio� ���d �religiou� �������utio�� ��� ��haping �ommunity, � giou� ���uralism d� ������ d� istinctiv� �hurch-����� r� elations. � belonging ���d ����zensh�� ��mong �� �grou� ��h�� ��� ��ocio- Y�� �both ������� �hav� �developed �differ��� ��olicy ��oo�� �for � economically ��rosperou� ���d �highly ��ducated. �Based ��� � managing the integration of immigrants and their chil- th� ��hoo� �of �Bu������ ���d ��o��� ������� ���o �� ehamp- dren. �A� ��h� ���m� ���me, ��� ��h� ��o�� �‘9/11’ ���d ��o�� �‘7/7’ � to� � University, � I � hav� � recently � �mbarked � o� � �� � ESRC � era, � both � ����o�� �r � � � grappling � with � deb���� � over � �h� � funded r� esearch ��roj�� ��h�� w� ��� ��xam��� how� �������m ��� � meaning� �of ��heir �respectiv� �����o��� ��dentities, ���d ��h� � being ��ranslated ���d/or ��ransformed ��� ���w �������gs, ���d � media, �governm��� ���d ��olicymaker� �hav� �raised �ques- investig��� ��h� k� ind of� f� aith �ommu������ ��h�� ���ond ���d � tio�� �of ��oyalty ���d ����zensh�� �with �r����� ��o �����fi � third-generatio� ������ ��r� bu� ilding. I� w� ��� ����o ����k ��o u� n- sectio�� �of ��mmigr��� �ommu������ ��� ��h� ��wo �ountries. derstand �how ��heir �religiou� ��ractices, �belief� ���d ���hics, � Finally, ��� ���ho � ped ��h�� ��h�� ���udy w� ��� ��dd ��o ��h� ��m��� � such ��� ��on-vio���� ��olutio�� ��o �onflict, ��ustainab�� ���v- number �of ��mpor���� �work� ��h�� ��x��� �o� ����� �ommuni- ing, ���d v� egetarianism, r� eso���� w� ith v� alu�� ��� ��h� w� ider � ���� ou� tsid� of� I� nd�� ���d ��xtend our� k� nowledg� ��bou� ��h� � society ���d �whether ��hey �hav� ��h� ��o������� ��o ��romo�� �� � practice and meaning of Jainism among young Jains in shared ������of � ����zenship. th� �UK ���d �USA. � This study is multidisciplinary and situated in contem- porary ��holarsh�� ��� �r���� ���d ���h�� ���udies, �fem����� � theory and cultural studies that seeks to address the role Bindi Shah received her doctorate in Sociology from the of r� ace, ���hnicity, g� ender ���d �����, ���mu � ������ ���d �����r- University of California, Davis, USA, and is an ESRC secting ��x�� of� ��ower, ��� ��haping ��o��� ���d ��o������ r� ela- Research Fellow in the School of Business and Social tions, ��xper����� �of �belonging ���d �o����� �of ����zen- Sciences at Roehampton University UK. Her research ship. �My �research �o� �young ������ �w��� �ontribu�� ��o ��h�� � focuses on identity, community and belonging among scholarsh�� �by ���vestigating ��h� �ro�� �of �religio� ��� ��h��� � Southeast Asian and South Asian youth in the UK and processes. Th� � �����y��� w� ��� r� ely o� � ��h� g� eneratio� of� r� ich � USA. qualitativ� �d��� ��hrough ���-depth �����rview� �with �young � ����� ��� ��h� UK� ���d U� SA ���d w� ith ���y ����ders, ���r������� � observatio�� � of � �o��� � ��d � religiou� � �vents, � ����y��� � of � print and internet materials produced and consumed by young ������, ��� �w��� ��� ��hrough �grou� �discussio�� �held � v�� �web-logs.

36 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

Jaina Collection at the Victoria and Albert Museum: A Volunteer’s Perspective

Sobhag Shah ______he Victoria and Albert Museum has a small but im- por���� �ollectio� of� �����Ar � t. Th� �� ����ud�� �� ��umber � ofT ��ulptur�� �of �very �high �quality ��� ���o�� ���d �m���� �dat- ing � from � �h� � ��venth � �o � �h� � fifteenth � ���uries, � �rinci- pally �from �wester� ���d ��outher� �India. �Th� �V&A’� ����� � sculptur� �formed �� ���gnifi��� �ompo���� ��ogether �with � other �Euro���� �ollectio�� ��� ��h� �L� �Caix� ��xhibitio� �o� � Ar� ���d �Devotio� ��� �Barcelona, ������ ����� �year �urated � by ��oh� �Guy. ����� ��ublicatio� �of ��h� ����� ���wsletter ��h� � ���� �web���� �h�� �b��� �ompleted, ����uding ��h� ��dditio� � of �video �����rview� �by �member� �of �London’� ����� �om- munity �discussing ��rtwork� �of ���rticular �����rest. � Continuing cataloguing and digitising parts of the Jain collectio� � w��� � ���b�� � mor� � obj��� � �o � b� � �dded � �o � �h� � web���� wh� ich ���b � � ������d by� ��holar� ���d m� ember� � of ��h� ��ublic. �During �my ���ght-year ����ur� ��� �� �volun- teer ��� h�� � V&A,� I� h� av� h� elped ��� �reating ���w �omputer � catalogue records of their sculpture collection relating to Jainism, �Hinduism ���d �Buddhism �with ���formatio� ��re- viously �o� �����r �fi��� ���d ��� �registers. �Th�� �record� ��h� � d������ � of � �h� � object, � ��� �hy���� � description, � material, � size, ���y ����riptio� ���d ���� �history. � Mo�� r� ecently, I� h� av� wr� ����� ��r����� o� � �����F � estiv��� � Sobhag ��hah ��� ��h� V&A� �with ��h� �bronz� �����r���� �of � and �Pilgrimag� ������. �I �hav� ����o �giv�� �� �video �����rview � Śāntinātha, ��h� ���xteenth �����tīrthaṅkara � . on a Vijñaptipatra (� letter of� ���vitatio� ��o �� �����mo � nk) for� � th� �V&A’� ���w ����� �website. � �A� ��r����� �I ��m �working � on the V&A’s collection of illustrated folios from Jain w��� ��o �mokṣa �from �Mou�� �Girnar. � ��h� ��� �worshipped � Kalpasūtra � manuscr���� � dating � from � �h� � ���� � fifteenth � on behalf of mothers and infants and is usually depicted century. �Th��� �manuscr���� ��xemplify ��� ��mpor���� ����� � seated �o� �� ���o� ��hro�� �with �her �hild, �beneath �� �mango � contribution to the history of Indian painting during this tree. period. W� ���� �hav� �o�� ���f� ��� ��h�� �world ���d �by �making �u�� � of our time to the best of our abilities and helping people �� ����d �or �volunteering ��� �organisatio�� ��h�� ����d �h��� ��� � th� �mo�� �rewarding ��xperience. � ����urning ��omething ��o � society ��� ���way� �usefu� �– ��o �b� ��b�� ��o ����� �o� ��om� �of � th� �knowledg� ��quired �over �many �year� ��o ���o��� �who � can use it and continue the cycle of gathering and dis- seminating ���formation. �

Sobhag (Raju) Shah is a retired Chartered Surveyor and The birth of Mahāvīra a volunteer in the Asian Department of the Victoria and Folio from a Kalpasūtra manuscript Albert Museum, London. Opaqu� �watercolour, ���k ���d �gold �o� �����r , ���ond �half �of ��h� �15th ����ury V&A �Museum ��umber �IM.8-1931

My f� avour��� ����� ��ulptur� ��� ��h� bro� nz� �����r���� of� � For more information on the V&A Jaina Collection Śāntinātha, ��h� ���xteenth ����� tīrthaṅkara. �I� �h�� ��rid� �of � please visit the museum's website: ���� ��� ��h� �museum ���d �I �mak� �� ��o��� ��very �week ��o � ��� ��h�� �����. I� � ��� ���mo�� ���k� v� isiting �� ���mple! My� o� ther � www.vam.ac.uk/collections/asia/jainism/ favor��� ����� ��� ��h� �grey �hlor��� ���o�� ��ulptur� �of ��h� � Godd��� �Ambikā � dated � �welfth � ���ury. �Ambikā � �� �h� � yakṣī �of �Neminātha, ��h� ��wenty-second �tīrthaṅkara �who �

37 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

Śikarbandha Jaina Derāsar Temple at Potters Bar Offcially Opened

Prakash Shah ______�� ��� �� ���rawling �80 ��r� ����� ��� �rur�� �Hertfordshire, � o� ��h� �outskir�� �of �Potter� �Bar, ��� ��h� �Oshw�� �Centre, � housingS the communal grounds and buildings managed by ��h� �Halar� �V��� �Oshw�� �ommunity �of �Britain. �Th�� � community wh� ich h� ���� from� rur� �� K� athiawar ��� ��ow d� is- persed ���d � iffer��� ���r�� of� I� nd�� ���w � ��� ���g � lobally, mo� �� � notably ��� �E��� Afr� ica, �Britain, �North Am� er�� ���d Au� s- tralia. �O�� �of ��h� ��maller �ommu������ �of ��outh �A����� � �� �Britain, V� ��� �Oshw��� �mainly ���v� ��� ��h� �urb�� ����r�� � of �London, �Leicester, �Luton, �Nottingham, ���d �Welling- borough and are thinly dispersed through the rest of the country. � � Th� �Oshw�� �Centr� �ground� �wer� ��urchased ��� �1980 � through communal cooperation and fundraising under the au����� of� ��h� O� shw�� A� ssociatio� of� ��h� UK� (OAUK),� �� � charity r� egistered �����1969. � I� nitially ��h� �����o � nly h� ad �� � mansio� ���d ��om� b� ar�� ���d ����bles, ��mid�� �� ���rg� gr� ��� � ���� �of ����d, �bu� ��h� �ground� �hav� ����� ����� ��h� ��rec- provided �much �food �for ��hough� ��bou� ��h� �mod�� �of ���r- tio� �of ��wo �functio� �h���� ���d �� ��r ���rk. Th� � �Centr� �h�� � form��� ���d ���ructur�� �of ����� �ritu��� �(Shah �2007). � becom� o� �� of� ��h� m� ajor m� eeting ��o���� for� ��h� m� ember� � The August 2007 ceremonies then completed the cycle of this dispersed community and an important site for the of r� itu�� ���rform���� for� ��h� ���m��� ��o b� � fi� nally �onsid- perform��� of� ���f� �y�� r� ituals, ���������y for� w� edding� � ered �ready �for �worship. �Th��� �mainly �onsisted �of �pūjās and �deaths, ��� �w��� ��� �� ����� �wher� �religiou� �or �yearly � for the parts of the derāsar and for the ādhār abhiṣeka ev���� ��uch ��� �paryuṣaṇ and dīvālī ��� �b� �marked. �Th� � pūjā to be performed for each of the icons situated in- Centr� ���w � ��� k� now� ����o ��mong ��o�� H� indu �ommuni- side the derāsar building ���d �outsid� ��� ��h� ��wenty-four � ���� �becau�� �of ��h� ��ossibility �of �hiring ��h� ��urpose-bu��� � ped������ �(devakulikās). �I� ��ddition, ��her� �wer� ���divid- functio� �h���� �for ����brations, ���������y �weddings, ���d � ual pūjās carried �ou� �for ��h� �variou� ���r�� �of ��h� ���m��� � interested � ��ud���� � w��� � b� � �b�� � �o � ��� � both � Hindu � ��d � complex �– ��h� �kesar �room, ��h� �ahiṁsā symbol, ��h� �four � ���� w� edding r� itu��� (� vivāha vidhi) being performed here fountains, ��h� ��wo ���o�� ���d ��wo �����h���� �guarding ��h� � �� ��heir ����bor��� �variety. � derāsar, ���d �for ��h� �olum�� ���d ������r� �of ��h� �derāsar, From ��h� ���m� of� ��quisitio� of� ��h� Po� tter� B� ar ��roper- the 21 benches and the 54 oṭalīs �(th� ��ow �����form-���� � ty ��h� ��������o� w� �� ��o bu� ild �� �����derāsar � on the site and surrounding �� ��ree). � �� �w�� �only ��� �Augu�� �2007 ��h�� ��h� �ommunity �marked � The oṭalīs, or small round platforms, are an interest- th� �fi��� ����g�� ��� h�� � �opening �of �� �derāsar there. �Th�� � ing feature of the derāsar and, wh� ��� ��o� ‘r� eligious’, ��hey � w�� ��om� ����y � ear� ��fter ��h� ��������r � itu��� of� br� eaking ��h� � co���� ��h� �V��� �Oshw�� �ommunity ��o ���� �orig��� ��� ��h� � ground �(bhūmi pūjā and khanan vidhi) and of laying the Halar ��r�� �of �Gujarat’� � �������ula. �Th� �����- foundatio� ���o�� (� śilānyās vidhi) took place in September tor� of� ��h� �ommunity ��r� ��hough� ��o h� av� b� ��� ��r����� ��� � 1997. Mo� �� of� ��h� pratiṣṭhā� r� ituals, wh� ich ��ompany ��h� � th�� ��r�� �of �Gujar�� ����� ��h� �16th ����ury ��fter �� ��ossi- installation of the pratimās �(mūrtis) of the tīrthaṅkaras, b�� �migratio� �from ���jasth�� �v�� �Kutch. �������m��� ��h�� � wer� � ��rformed � �� �h� � �ummer � of � 2005, � wh��� � �h� � re- took � ���� � ��� Halar, � ���r � ��mnagar, � ��d � r�� ead � �ro�� � maining � �remo���� � wer� � ��f� � for � ompletio� � �� � 2007. � som� ���ghty �. �However, ��h� �������g �of ��h� ���ory � Th� �2005 ��remo���� ����uded ���ver�� ��y��� �of �pūjā and of � orig�� � �ormally � �dentifi�� � �h� � ommunity’� � roo�� � �o � fifty-two v� illag�� (� bāvan gām). ��o ��� h�� � ���m��� �omplex � each oṭalī ��� ����d ��o r� epr����� o� �� v� illag� of� H� alar. A� v� ery � sim��� �ritual, ���volving ��h� ��ying �of �� ��hread ��round, ���d � applying a tilak on the stalk of a seedling nesting in each oṭalī, � om������ � �h� � �remony. �And � �uch �ro � cedur� � �� � followed �for ���h �of ��h� �fifty-two oṭalīs� . Th� � mo�� � �mpor���� � of � �h� � ‘religious’ � ritu��� � �� �h� � adhār abhiṣeka. �Th�� ��� ����d ��o �b� �� �ritu�� �of ��urificatio� � for all of the pratimās , or� ��mages. I� � ��� �onsidered ���������� � to ���rform ��� �whenever �� �pratimā �h�� �b��� �moved, �h�� � b��� ���f� �unattended �withou� ��h� �required �daily �pūjā, �or � if ���h � �� b� ��� ��xposed ��o ��om� ��or� of� āśātanā� , or� ��mpur� � action. � Th� � ritu�� � ��volv�� �h � � � bathing � of � �h� � pratimā

38 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

eigh���� ���m�� �with �water �mixed �with �herb� ���d ���red � substances, � wh��� � � �r� � recited. � Th� � �d�� � �� �o � bathe the pratimā �with ��h� �ritu�� �water ��ouring �from ��h� � head ��o ��h�� ��� �reach�� ��h� �base, ��hu� ��urifying ���. �Fiv� � of the pratimās in the derāsar interior, ���d ��h� ��wenty- four pratimās seated in the devkulikās surrounding the derāsar o� � ����ou � tside, w� er� ��remoniously b� athed ��� ��h�� � way. � With the ceremonies and rituals of the summer of 2007 the derāsar pratiśthā mahotsav w� �� �onsidered �om����� � and ��h� ���m��� ���d ���� �����r� �omplex �finally �ready �for � worship. � A� � with � �h� � �v���� � �� � 2005, � food � om������ � with ����� r�� ������� �w�� ��rovided ��o ���� �visitors, �having � b��� �ooked �by �hired �worker� ���d ���rved �by �volunteers. � Indeed, �many �of ��h� ����k� ���volved ��� �organising ��h��� � hug� ��v���� �wer� �only ��ossib�� �with ��h� �h��� �of �many � volunteer� �from �with�� ��h� �ommunity. � th� ����g� �of ��ransitio� �from �worsh�� ��� �ghar derāsar to a derāsar With this � �h� � V��� � Oshw�� �ommu  nity, � �h� � larg� ���mple. � � larg��� � of � Britain’� � ���� �ommunities, �ow � � bo���� � �h� � building of� ��h� fir� �� śikharbandha� ����� ���m��� ���Euro � pe. � All photos are by the author. For the community the opening of the temple also marks th� �filling �of ��h� �major �f��� �ho�� ��� ���� �ritu�� ���her� �– ���d � Prakash Shah specialises in immigration, refugee and , ethnic minorities and diasporas in law, and comparative law with special reference to South Asians, and has published widely in those fields. He is currently Senior Lecturer in Law at Queen Mary, Univer- sity of London and a Visiting Lecturer at SOAS.

References:

Shah, �Prakash �(2007): �‘A ��hotograph� �����y �o� �� � ���� ��raditio� ��� �diaspora’. �In: A� njoom �Mukadam ���d � Sharm��� M� aw��� (� eds.): Gujaratis� in the West: Evolving identities in contemporary society. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: �Cambridg� ��holar� �Press, � pp. �79-92

A ��hor� �history �of ��h� �ommunity ��� �http://www.oshwal. org/oshwaluk/Pages/OAUK/History/history.htm.

39 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

Jaina Manuscripts: Visit to the British Library

Kavita Mehta ______� ���r� of� our� ��OA� �our�� ‘� ���� ��riptur� ���d Com� - munity’ w� � v� isited ��h� Br� itish L� ibrary o� � 19� th O� cto- bAer 2007� ��o ����r� ��bou� �����m � anuscripts. Dr� K� anhaiy���� � Sheth ���d �Dr �K������ ��heth, ���r� �of ��h� ����m �of �writer� � (besid�� �Professor� �Candrabh�� �Tripath� ���d �N����� �Bal- bir) of� ��h� ���w ‘C� atalogu� of� ��h� �����M � anuscr���� of� ��h� � British L� ibrary’, h� ad k� indly ������d ��o �����k ��o u� � ��bou� � th��� �manuscr���� ���d ����� �manuscriptology ��� �general. � � A� � �h� � ollectio� � of � ���� � manuscr���� � �� �o� � displayed, � w� w� er� ���k�� ��o �� m�� ��� �onfer��� room� wh� er� M� ar��� � Ch������ � of � �h� � British � Library � �outh �A��� � ����o� � had � specially �displayed ��om� �manuscr���� �for �us, �which �Dr� � Sheth �had �������d. Th� �ollectio� �of ����� �manuscr���� ��� ��h� �British �Li- brary �onstitu��� ��rguably ��h� �mo�� ���gnifi��� �ollectio� � th� � ommentary � �� � wr����� �bov � � � ��d � below � �his. � Th� � of � ���� � manuscr���� � outsid� � India. � I� � ompr���� � 1,057 � m��� ���x� ��� ��� �� �bigger ��r��� �wh��� ��h� �ommentary ��� � manuscr���� � – � 494 � from � Or������ � Collectio�� � ��d � 563 � wr����� ��� ��m �� aller ��ript. �I� ��h� �pañcapāṭha �(five-fold) � from ��h� �Ind�� �Offi� �Library. ����� �1998, ��h��� �manu- style, ��h� �m��� ���x� ��� �wr����� ��� ��h� ����re, ��g��� ��� �bold � scr���� � hav� � b��� � housed � �� �h� � ��w � British � Library � scr��� �wh��� ��h� �ommentary ��� �wr����� ��bove, �below, �o� � Building. �I� �1982, ��h� �Ind�� �Offi� �Library �w�� �united � th� � ��f� � ��d � right. �Th� � ��qu��� � of � reading � �� � – � upper, � with ��h� �British �Museum �Library, �which �had ���ready �be- right, ���f� ���d ��ower. ��ometim�� ��h� �m��� ���x� ��� �����d � com� ���r� �of ��h� �British �Library. �Th�� ��� �1991, ��h� �ol- o� �o�� ���d� ���d ����ustratio�� �o� ��h� �other �or �m��� ���x� ��� � lections of the Department of Oriental Manuscripts and th� ����r� ���d ����ustratio�� �o� ����her ���de. Printed �Books, �renamed ��h� �Oriental Collections, �wer� � W� � ���o � ��w � �om� � �xam���� � of � guṭkās. � A � guṭkā is moved ��o ��h� �British �Library ���d �hav� ��ow �becom� ��h� � similar ��o �� o�� tebook or� ��d � iary. I� � ���u � sually m� ad� of� ���v- Or������ � ��d � Ind�� � Offi� � Collection. � Th� � old��� � dated � er�� ���dividu�� ���xts, �which �may �or �may ��o� �hav� ��ome- manuscr��� ��� ��h� �British �Library ��� ��h� �Jītakalpacūrṇi, thing ��� �ommon. �Guṭkās ��� �b� �wr����� �by �o�� �or �mor� � � ����m-leaf �manuscr��� �dated �V.S. �1258, ���d ��h� �old��� � individuals, ��� �which ���� ��hey ��� �b� �����d �ollectiv� � paper m� anuscr��� ���from � ��h� 13� th-14th ����ury. W� � w� er� � scripts. ��ometim�� �� ���b�� �of �o������ ��� ����uded. �Ther� � told ��h�� ��h� �fir�� ����� �manuscr��� �����red ��h� ���brary �be- could b� � �� ������y wr� ����� ���x� ���d ��h�� ��dditio�� m� ad� by� � for� �1753 �wh��� ��h� ����� �o�� �w�� ��quired ��� �recently ��� � � d� iffer��� h� and, ���mo�� ��� ��f ��omeo�� w� er� m� aking ��o��� � 2005. �Th� �manuscr���� �wer� �bough� �or �received ��� �do- �� �� ���rso��� �book. natio�� �from ���dividu�� �ollector� ���d ��holars, ��uch ��� � W� �wer� ���formed ��h�� ��h� ���� �����d �opani �w�� �usu- Herm��� ���obi, b� ased ���Gr � ��� Br� ����� or� G� ermany, ���d � ally �� ��ointed �bamboo ����k. �Th� ���kpo� �w�� �mad� �from � also ��hrough �British ��g���� ��� �India, �Ind��� ��g���� ���d � wood or� m� etal, ���d ��urprisingly, ��ometim�� ��� �����hant’� � sometim�� ��v�� �from �����mo � nks. tooth. ���d ���gm��� �w�� �used ��o �wr��� �or �highligh� �head- Th� � majority � of � �h� � ���� � manuscr���� � �� �h� � Library � ing� wh� ��� y� ellow ���d wh� ��� ���gm���� w� er� u� sed ��o ��r��� � ar� wr� ����� ����her ��� �����kr�� or� Pr� akrit. Bu� � ��her� ��r� ����o � mistakes. A� lthough ��h� �mo�� �ommo� �olour� �used �wer� � som� � wr����� � �� �Ardhamāgadhī, � ����� � Śaurasenī, � ����� � red, �blue, �yellow ���d �black, ��h� �ritually ��mpor���� �manu- Māhārāṣṭrī ���d A� pabhraṃśa. �Vernacular ����guag�� ��uch � scr���� � wer� � wr����� � �� � gold � or � ���ver. � Th� � Kalpasūtra, � �� �Gujarātī �Hindī, ��ājasthānī, �Kannad� ���d �Tam�� �wer� � Uttarādhyayanasūtra and the Bhaktāmarastotra w� er� ���� � used in the bālāvabodha, � �h� � versio�� � of �h � � � ��x� � �h�� � wr����� ���go � ld. Go� ld ���d ����ver w� er� g� enerally u� sed ��fter � constitu�� �guid�� �for �� �hild �or �beginner. �A�� ���o���� � th� �16th ����ury. tex�� �hav� bālāvabodha� �versions. Du� � �o � �h� � �hortag� � of � ���m � ���v�� � ��d �h � eir � �m��� � Mo�� of� ��h� m� anuscr���� ��h�� w� � ���w w� er� ��� h�� � pothī� size, ��o ��void �wastage, �of��� �marg��� �wer� ��o� ���f� ���d � format, � wher� � �h� � width � of � �h� � ���f � �� � greater � �h�� � �h� � punctuatio�� � �o� � used, � �hu� � making � �� � difficu�� �o � � read. � height. Th� �� �form�� �w�� �followed �becau�� ���������y, �birch � Sometim�� � �f �h � � � �dg�� � wer� � �or� � or � damaged, � ��r� � of � and ����m ����v�� �wer� �used �for �writing ���d ��hey ��uited � th� ���x� �w�� ��ost. �Mo�� �of ��h� �poṭhīs �w� ���w �wer� ���f� � th�� �format. �Wh�� �����r ��m� ����o �u�� ��h�� �form�� �w�� � unbound or had a string passing through the centre as ����� �ontinued. O� nly h� and-mad� �����r wh� ich w� �� �hemi- � �binding, ��using �� �blank ��� ��h� ����r� �of ��h� ���ge- ��� � �� fr� �� w� �� u� sed for� ��h�� ��urpose. A� ������� ���k w� �� u� sed � could �b� �� ��quare, �� �rectang�� �or �� ��ozenge. �Ev�� ��fter � which �w�� �mad� �from �mater���� ��uch ��� �vermilio� ��ow- paper �w�� ����roduced, ��h�� ���y�� w� �� ������ �ontinued. � der �(sindūr), �gum ��rabic, ���d �gold ����f. � W� � ���rned � �h�� � ���h � � � manuscr���� � beg�� � with � �h� � The format of the poṭhī is usually in the tripāṭha bhale ���gn. �Th�� ��� ��� �Apabhraṃśa form of oṃ and is an (three-fold) � or � pañcapāṭha � (five-fold) � ��yle. � I� � �h� � auspiciou� �way �of ����rting �� ���xt. �Th�� ��� �of��� �followed � tripāṭha ���yle, ��h� m� ��� ���x� ���wr � ����� ��� ��h� ����r� wh� ��� � by the Maṅgala Pañca Parameṣṭhin and either by the in-

40 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

vocatio� �of ���rasvatī �or �Ganeśa. �Nex� ��her� ��� ��h� ���x� � preserved � �� � g���� � fram�� � ��d � ������ �ompartmental- and ��h� �ommentary. ��ometim�� ��f ���w � �� ��v � ery �ommo� � ized �boxes. �Many �of ��h��� �hav� �b��� ��hotographed �for � text, �u � ch � �� �h� � Daśavaikālikasūtra, � �h� � ommentary � record� ���d ����y ��vailability of� ����des. Th� ey w� er� h� andled � w�� �wr����� ��� �� �����r��� ���x� �withou� ��h� �m��� �orig���� � with �glov�� �by ��h� ����ff �of ��h� �museum, �who �obviously � text. �Th�� �ould ��g��� �b� ��o ��void �wastag� �becau�� ��h� � took �gr��� ��rid� ��� ��hem. �W� �wer� ��o� ����owed ��o ��ouch � m��� ���x� �ould �b� ������y �obtained �from �����where. �Th� � th� m� anuscr���� ���d ��h� ����ff wor� � g� lov�� wh� ��� h� andling � manuscr��� � ��ded � with � �h� � �����r � ch or śrī, � �h� � kalaśa. � them. �I� �w�� �heartening ��o ���� ��h�� ���d �w� ���f� �with ��h� � Finally, ��h� �praśasti or �olopho� �w�� �written, �ontaining � happy �feeling ��h�� ��h��� ���valuab�� �manuscr���� �wer� ��� � informatio� �bou � � � �h� � �uthor, � h�� � guru � ��d � h�� � sādhus, � saf� h� and� ���d wou� ld b� � ��vailab�� ��� ��r������ �onditio� ��o � their �mo����� ��ffiliatio� �(paramparā), ��h� �opier� ���m� � futur� �generatio�� �of ������ ���d ����� ��holars. and ��h� d� ate. Th� ��� praśastis� w� er� v� ery ��mpor���� ��� ��hey � wer� �used ��o �find �histor��� �d��� ���d �mor� ���formatio� � Kavita Mehta is an MA Student in Jaina Studies at abou� ��h� �writer ���d �h�� paramparā� . SOAS. Over � �h� � years, � ���� � monk� � hav� � wr����� � o� � � wid� � variety of� ��ubjects. A� par� from� Phy� sics, Ch� emistry, B� iol- ogy, � Philosophy, � ��d � Āyurveda, � �her� � hav� � b��� � �om� � very � ����resting � ��d � �urprising � �o��� � overed, � from � References ratnaparīkṣā, how ��o ��xam��� ���d ��valu��� �� �diamond, � and suvarṇa-siddhi-upāya, how� ��o ��rodu� ���hem� go� ld � Balbir, �N����� �& �Kanhaiy���� V.� ��heth, �K������ �K. � with ��h� ��hy���� �bu� ��o� �hem��� ��roper���� �of �gold, ��o � Sheth ���d �Chandrabh�� �B. Tr� ipathi. Catalogue� of the aśvacikitsā, �how ��o �ur� �� �horse. � � Jain Manuscripts of the British Library. Including the The beautifully illustrated Jain manuscripts are all Holdings of the and the Victoria & carefully � ��d �ov � ingly � �reserved. � Th� � ���ustratio�� � �r� � Albert Museum. Vol. 1-3. �London: Th� � �British � protected � by � �rchiv�� � ����u� � ��d � �h� � ���m-leav�� � �r� � Library �& Th� � �Institu�� of� �����ology, �2006. �

Illustrated ���g�� �of �Gaṅgadāsa’� �Ādityavara-kathā of �1793 �(BL �Cat. �No. �1270) Courtesy �of ��h� �British �Library

41 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

The Epitome of Queen Lilāvati by Jinaratna

Richard Gombrich ______h� � Clay � ����kr�� � Library � w�� � founded � by � �oh� � Clay, �� �financier �who �read �����kr�� ��� �Oxford. �H� � wT�� ���ruck �by �how ������� ��h� �wester� �world �knew �of �In- dia’� �������� �����rature, ���mely �����, ����ys, ��oetry ���d � fictio��� ���rrative. �By ��utting �o� ��h� �mark�� ��� �reason- ab�� ��r��� ��om� ����ractively ��roduced ��ditio�� �of ��h��� � works, �with ��ranslatio�� �o� ��h� �facing ���ges, ���k� ��ho�� � published by the Loeb Classical Library, �h� ����o �hoped � to ����mu���� ��h� fl� agging �����r��� ��� ����rning �����krit. No� � initial selection of Sanskrit literature could neglect the two � gr��� � ����, � �h� � Mahābhārata and the Rāmāyaṇa, � or ��h� �mo�� �famou� ����ys, ��uch ��� �Kālidāsa’� �Śakuntalā, � bu� ��� �order ��o �giv� ��om� ��d�� �of �� �ro�� �����o� �of �wh�� � �� � �vailable, � �xam���� � of � Buddh��� � ��d � ���� � ����ratur� � had �o � � b� � ���uded � ��ongsid� � �h� � Brahminical/Hindu � works. W� � ��herefor� ���vited �Dr ���hard Fy� nes, �who �had � already ��roduced �� �volum� �of ����� ���ories, �“Th� �Liv�� � of ��h� ����� �Elders”, �for �Penguin Classics, ��o �hoo�� �� � work �for ��ranslation. �Dr �Fy��� �decided �upo� �The Epit- ome of Queen Lilāvati �by �����ratna. �Th�� �w��� ��oo� �b� � joined �by �Dr ��omdev �Vasudeva’� ��ranslatio� �(ag��� ��� � 2 � volumes) � of � Merutunga'� � "Twenty-four � Chronicles" � (Caturviṃśati-). � volum�� ��� ��h� Clay� Sanskrit Library stand alone as sin- gle-volum� �works, ���d ��om� �of ��h� ����g�� �volum�� ��r� � Why an Epitome? over �fiv� �hundred ���g�� ��ong. �Th� ������r �fact, �however, � �� �b� �misleading, �becau�� �half ��h� ���ges, ��ho�� �o� ��h� � Th� ��r�� ��� ������� �Ind�� �wer� �omposed ��� �����ure, � left, ��r� �occupied �by ��h� �����kr�� �original. performed ��� �����ure, ���d ������ded ��o �b� ���joyed ��� ����- Th� book� u� nder r� eview ��� ��� �����ome, b� ecau�� ��� ��� ��� � sure. I� � w� �� ��othing ���k� our� wor� ld of� ���metables, ��roduc- abbreviated �versio� �of �� �much ��onger �work, �The Story tivity �measur�� ���d �deadlines. Th� � �fi���� ���mples, �many � of Lilāvati’s Final Emancipation. �Th�� �work, �wr����� ��� � of � �hem � huge, � had � �very � ��h � of �h � eir � �urf��� � ���bo- Prakr�� ��� �1036 �by �� ����� �monk �����d �����śvara, ��� ��ost. � rately ��rved; ��h� o� nly ���m��� o� � ��h� qu� ality ���d qu� antity � The Epitome, �wr����� ��� �1285 �by ���other ����� �monk, ���- of � both � mater���� � ��d � workm�� � wer� �rob � ably � ��� � by � naratna, ��� ��� �����krit, ���d ��urviv�� o� nly ��� �� ����g�� m� an- wh�� ��h� ����ro� �ould ��fford �-- ���d ��h� ����ro� �w�� �of��� � uscript. �Unfortunately ��h�� �manuscr��� �h�� �� �few �g��� ��� � � �king, ��b�� ��o ��xtor� �mor� �wealth �wh�� �h� ����ded ���. it, �mostly ����r ��h� �beginning, �bu� ��o� ���ough ���riously � I� � �h� � m�� � � way, � ����rary � work� � ���ded � �o � b� � ��or- to h� amper o� ne’� ����reciatio� of� ��h� work.� B� esides, ��om� � mously ��ong. A� ����y h� ad ��o ����� ���� ���ght, or� ��v�� ���ver�� � of ��h� �difficu����� ��� ��h� ���x� �may �b� �du� ��o �orruption; � nights. �Peo��� �did ��o� �buy �books; �����ratur� �w�� �mostly � withou� ���other �opy ��o �heck ��gainst, ��� ��� �b� �hard ��o � consumed by� ���������g ��o r� ecitations, ���d ��h� ��onger ��hey � tell. lasted, ��h� b� etter. Th� er� w� er� ��hor� form� s, ���k� m� iniatur� � paintings: ����g�� �����z� ��oems, �usually �highly �wrought. � Language and Milieu Bu� ��v�� ��h��� ����ded ��o �b� �used ��� �ollectio�� �– �of �� � hundred � verses, � or � �v�� � ��v�� � hundred. � A� � �h� � other � The Epitome � �� � �ollectio� � of � onnected � ��ories, � extrem� �w�� ��h� �gr��� �����kr�� ����, ��h� �Mahābhārata, � wr����� ���v � er�� ��� �orr�� �������� �����krit. Mo� �� of� ��h� � eigh� ���m�� ��h� ����gth of� ��h� who� �� of� Hom� er, ���d �����- ver�� ��� ��� ��h� �ommo���� �����kr�� �metre, ��h� �anuṣṭubh, � tor, ���k� ��h� �Rāmāyaṇa, ��o �many �other ����gthy ����� ��� � also � widely � bu� � ���urately � know� � �� �h� � śloka; this many �Ind��� ����guages. metr� ��� ��v�� �mor� �flexib�� ��h�� ��h� �functionally �om- Th� ���m��� �f�� ��h�� �mo�� �work� �of �Ind��� �������� � parab�� �Latin/Greek �hexameter ���d ��� ��h� �favour��� �for � literatur� ��r� �very ��ong �h�� ��robably �b��� �� �major �ob- lengthy � ��rrative. � Following � ������� �onvention, �h � � � ����� ��o ���� �diffusio� ��� ��ranslation, ���d �h��� ��o ���� �be- author ����o �occasionally, ���d ���rticularly ��� ��h� ���d �of �� � coming � know� � ��h � � � moder� � world � d�� � fully � joining � canto, �w��� ��how �off �h�� �mastery �of �much �mor� �ompli- th� �orpu� of� wor� ld �����rature. P� eo��� do� n’� f� ��� ��h�� ��hey � cated �metres. hav� ��h� ���m� ��o r� ead ��uch ��ong book� s, ���d ��o ��ublisher� � Jainism � ��d � Buddhism � both � originated � �� �ro����� � find ��� �uneconom� ��o ��ublish ��hem. �Only ��bou� �half ��h� � ag����� � Brahminism. � O�� � ����� � of � �heir � �ro���� � w�� �

42 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

th�� � wher��� � brahm��� � regarded � ����kr�� � �� � � ���red � they � wer� � read � ��oud � ���her � ��our � � � or � �� �h� � kind � of � languag� � with � �� � ��her��� � onnectio� � �o � reality, � �h��� � assembly halls donated to the community by rich mer- heterodox � religio�� � �������d � o� � using � �h� � vernacular � chants. languages, �form� �of �Midd�� �Indo-Aryan. �Midd�� �Indo- For ���� ��hat, ��� ���rm� of� ��h� who� �� ��opulatio� ��h� ��udi- Ary�� ��� h�� � mod� er� ���rm for� ����guag�� d� erived d� irectly � ��� �mu�� �hav� �b��� �draw� �from �� �very ��m��� ��ducated � from Sanskrit; in the Indian tradition these are called élite. �Thu� ��� ���o �� � ��urprising ��h�� ��h�� �work ��urviv�� ��� � . � Buddhism � d�� � ������m � used � Prakr��� � both � �� � only o� �� m� anuscript, wh� ��� ��h� work� o� � wh� ich ��� ���b � ased � order to be more accessible and to emphasise the con- (wr����� ��� � ������� �Prakrit, �which � by � �h�� ���riod � w�� � ventio��� �haracter �of ����guage. �However, �vernacular� � no �mor� ������b�� ��h�� �����krit) �h�� �b��� �wholly ��ost, � chang� � over � m�� � � ��d � ����, � wher��� � ����kr�� � h�� � re- lik� m� any o� thers. Th� � ��urpr��� ���r � ather, ��o my� m� ind, ��h�� � mained �mor� �or ����� �frozen. ��o ��� ��m� ��bou� ��h�� ���rly � th��� ��ong �����kr�� �work� �wer� wr� ����� ��� ����. �� � �h� �ommo  � � �ra, � �bou� � half � � millennium � �fter � ��� � ���� ��h� or� ig���� ��� ��� �����krit, ��o� �� �vernacular ����- birth, �Buddhism �beg�� ��o �u�� �����kr�� ��� �� �mor� ��ffi- guage, ���hard �Fy��� �h�� �fittingly �ho��� ��o ��r������� ��� � ���� �m���� �of �ommunicatio� �with �� �wid� ��ublic. �A� � into ��omewh�� �form�� �English. �For ���� ��hat, �I �find ��h�� � first, Buddh� ��� �����kr�� w� �� ��othing mor� � ��h�� Buddh� ��� � h�� ��ro�� �ru�� ��moothly ���d ��� ����y ��o �read. �H�� �well- Prakrit dressed up in Sanskrit phonetics; but soon for wr����� ����roductio� ����o ���k� �� ��o� �of ���formatio� ����o � cer���� ��urpo��� �Buddh��� ��uthor� ����rted �using ������- ��� ���ges. �� �����kr�� �– �of �our�� �with ��h� ��dditio� �of ��om� �Bud- dh��� ���h���� �vocabulary. ����her �����r, ����r ��h� �midd�� � Genre of ��h� �fir�� �millennium �CE, ������ �beg�� ��o �do ��h� ���m� � thing. Thu� � ����� �����kr�� ��uperficially ��ook� ���k� ��orm�� � Jinar���� �������h � �� ���m� ��� ��h� ou� tset. H� � w� ��� ��rivileg� � ������� �����krit, �bu� ��� ����d� ��o ����ud� �vocabulary ��o� � narrativ� ov� er d� escription, ���d ���rr��� ��� �� �omparative- know� ��o ��h� Br� ahmin/Hindu ��radition. Th� er� ��� ��o ����r � ly ������ ���d ���m��� ���yle. L� ik� �� ��um� of� ��ugar ��oaked ��� � ���� �of �demarcatio� �betw��� �distinctively ����� �����kr�� � medicine, h� �� �ondensatio� of� ��h� ���ory ��� ������ded ��o b� � � and ��orm�� �����kr�� �wr����� �by ������; ��� �depend� �mainly � � ��weetener ��o �onvey ��o ��o���� ��ociety �� �willing���� ��o � o� ��h� �ontext. ������ �– �h� �means, �of �ourse, ��o ����� ����hings. Wh�� ��� ����r, �however, ��� ��h�� ��hroughou� �Ind��� �his- I� ��h�� �kind �of �work �moder� �reader� ��hould ��o� ��x- tory �����krit, �with ���� �omplex �grammar ���d �hug� �vo- ��� � �o � find � much � depictio� � of � ��dividu�� � haracter � or � cabulary, �h�� �b��� �understood �only �by �highly ��ducated � psycholog��� � �ubtlety. � Th� � ��or��� � �r� � ���on-packed, � people, �� ��m��� �minority �of ��h� ��opulation. �Th�� �minor- picaresque, ���d ��� ���m�� ��v�� �baroqu� ��� �flavour. �Ther� � ity � generally � w�� � omprised � of � member� � of �h � � � upper � �� ���ver ��h� ����gh���� doub� � ��bou� who� or� wh� �� ���good � or� � castes, ���d ���deed mo� �� of� ��hem w� er� br� ahmins. Bu� t, ��x- bad. �D������ �many �disaster� ���ong ��h� �way, �for ��h� �m��� � ��� ���rh��� ��� ��h� v� ery b� eginning, h� ardly ���y br� ahm��� � hero�� ���d �hero���� �� �happy ���ding ��� ����ured. �O� ��h� � becam� ������. � other h� and, �����ratna’� ��d�� of� ��h � appy ���ding ���v � ery f� ar � And �y�� ��� �mediaev�� ���m�� �many �work� �of ����� ����- from �wh�� �mo�� �of �u� �would ��xpect, �or ���deed �ho�� �for � erature, ���d ��� ���rticular �of ��maginativ� �����rature, �wer� � ourselves: ��� ���o �� ������� ������ �from ��h� �y�� �of �rebirth � composed ��� �����krit. (F� ew of� ��hem h� av� y� �� b� ��� ��rans- through ��������m ���d �understanding �of �how ��h� ����- lated ����o ���y ����guage.) �Evidently �young �monk� �wer� � sio�� ��mpriso� �u� ��� ��� �otherw��� ���d���� ��xper���� �of � taugh� � ����krit, � ��d � � few � becam� � ����kr�� � �holars. � suffering, Th�� �monk� �read ���d �wro�� ���or��� ��� ��o� ������f ���rticu- I� �Ind��� ���rrativ� �����ratur� ��her� ��� ���mo�� ���way� �� � larly ���range, ����� ����� ���or��� ��r� �generally ���rmeated � good �d��� �of �boxing: ���or��� ��r� ��old �with�� ���ories. Th� �� � with ����� �valu�� �-- ��h� �horror �of �violence, ��h� ���r��� �of � �� �b� �� ��roblem �for ��h� �reader �who �would ���k� ��o �d�� � self-indulgence, � �h� � �uperior � �����factio�� � of � renuncia- into ��h� �book �mor� �or ����� ��� �random. �I� ��h�� �book ��her� � tio� �– ���d ����ustr��� ��h� �working� �of ��h� �mor�� ���w �of � �� �� �fram� ���ory �for ��h� �who�� �work, �oncerning �� �qu��� � karma, ��h�� ��h� ��ff��� of� good� ���d b� ad d� eed� ��r� f� ��� for� � called L� ilāv��� ���d h� er f� amily, bu� � o� therw��� ���� ���ructur� � lif� ��fter ���fe. �� ��o� ��oo �omplicated. �Th� �reader �mu�� �b� �ready ��o �b� � Th� � majority � of � ���� � ����kr�� � ����rary � work� � were, � jolted from� o� �� ���f� ��o ��h� ���x� ���k � arm� ���k�� ���� �ourse, � lik� ��h�� �one, �wr����� ��� �Gujar�� ���d �wester� ���jasthan. � bu� �w��� ���joy ��h�� �roller-coaster �rid� ��hrough saṃsāra� . I� ��h�� ��r�� ��her� �wer� ��o� �only ��mpor���� �ommu������ � of ��rosperou� ����� ��raders, �bu� ����o ���ver�� ����� ��rince- Richard Gombrich is the General Editor of the Clay ly � ourts. � Cour�� � wer� � ���o � ultur�� � ���res, � o� � which � Sanskrit Library. learned depended for patronage; they also em- ployed br� ahm��� ��� ���rk� ���d ��dministrators. Th� � mod� - er� � ��������� � o� � �h� � ����r��� �u  ltur�� � �dentity � of, � for � The Epitome of Queen Lilāvati �by �����ratna, � ed. ���d ��rans. ��.C.C. �Fynes. example, ������ ���d �Hindu �brahm��� ��hould ��o� �blind �u� � Clay �����kr�� L� ibrary, �New York� � to ��h� �f�� ��h�� ��hey ��hared �much �of ��heir �ulture. �Many � University �Pr��� ���d ���C �Foundation, learned �work� �by �brahm��� ������� ��o ��heir �knowledg� �of � vol.1, �2005, �543 ���. ���d �vol.2, �2006, �650 ���. th� �relev��� ����� �����rature. �W� ��� ��mag��� ��h�� �work� � such ��� ��h�� �o�� �found ��� ����reciativ� ��ud���� �wh�� �

43 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

Jainology and Motilal Banarsidas

N.P. Jain ______h� firm� of� Mo� ����� B� anarsidas, I� ndolog��� ��ublisher� � and �distributors, ��� �����rnationally �recognized �for ���� � cTontributio� ��o ��h� �field �of �Indology. � �I� �w�� �founded ��� � 1903 ���L � ahore, ��ow ���P � akistan, by� L� ��� ��under��� �����, � who o� pened �� m�� ��� book� sho� ‘� Said M� itth� B� azar’ wh� ich � specialized ��� �religiou� �books. A� �����, �h� �w�� �� ����ritu�� � perso� ���d �worked �with ����h �Kasturbh�� �Lalbh�� �of ��h� � Anandj� �Kalyanj� �Pedh� ���Ahm � edabad. L��� � �under��� � ���� � w�� � himself � ���v� � �� �h� � field � of �Indology ��o ��h� ��x���� ��h�� ��holar� �from ���� �over ��h� � world �used ��o �om� ��o �him ��o ����k �h�� ��dv�� ���d �guid- ��� �with �regard ��o �undertaking �research �or ��ranslatio� � work. �Collaborating �with �h�� ��o� �Mo����� ���d �grandso� � Banarsidass, � L��� � �under��� � ���� �xpanded � from � book � with ��h� ����� ��holar �Mu�� ��umbūvijay� ��o ��ublish ��h� � selling ����o ��ublishing, ���d ��hu� w� �� ��h� ��ublishing �om- Jain Āgamas �with �� �����kr�� �ommentary, ����roductio� � pany �Mo����� �Banarsid�� (MLBD)� �����blished. � and ���ver�� ������dices. MLBD � ook� � � � ��rticular � ����r��� � �� �ublishing � ���� � � I� � �h� � �������� � ��gh���� � �wo �om  prehensiv� � work� � tex�� ���d ��romoting ��hem, ��rimarily �becau�� �of ��h� ��ro- o� ����� ���ud��� �wer� ��ublished. �Pāiasadda Mahaṇṇavo: moters’ � being � ���� �hemselv�� � ��d � having � �o�� � on- A Comprehensive Prakrit Dictionary by �T.S.Hargovind � ��� � with � ���� � monk� � ��d � �holars, � ��������y � Ācāry� � D�� �w�� �reprinted ��� �1983, ���d ��� �1988 �fiv� �volum�� �of � Vijayvallabhsūri. �Th� �buyer� �of ����� �book� �wer� ����her � the Illustrated Ardha Magadhi Dictionary by Jain Muni scholar� � of � Indology, � ���� � Institutio�� � or � ���� � Monks. � Ratnacandr� �with ��� ����roductio� �by A.C.� Woo� lner. Later, � �h� � firm � beg�� � �o � forg� � ���ociatio�� � with � Euro- O� � 6 �Apr�� � 1992, � �h������� � ���� � w�� � honoured � with � ���� �Indolog���� ���k� ��uliu� ��olley, �� �Germ�� �Indologist, � th� �‘Padmashri’ ��ward �by ��h� ��h�� �Presid��� �of �Ind�� ��. � who h� elped g� etting I� ndolog��� ��ublicatio�� of� Euro� ���� � Venkataram�� �for ��x������ ���rv�� ��o ��h� �����o� ��� ��h� � scholar� �ub � lished � �hrough � MLBD. � O�� � �uch � �holar � field of� ��ublishing. �I � � ��dditio� ��o ��ublishing ����vities, ��� � w�� �Herm��� ���obi. � 1995, ��ogether �with ��h� ������ �ommunity, ��h������� ����� � I� � 1947, � �� �h� � ��m� � of � ��rtitio� � of � India, � �h� � firm’� � w�� � ����rum����� � �� �utting � u� � � � ���� ���m��� � �� � Hard- operatio�� w� er� r� ansacked ���d ���� ��blaze. Th� � f� amily ���- war � (Uttarakhand). � Th� � Parshvanath � ���� �hwetambar � caped ��o �Delh� ��� �refug��� ���d ��h�� ��raveled �o� ��o �P���� � Mandir �w�� �bu��� �with �������mer ���o�� �which �w�� �fully � (Bihar) wh� er� ��hey ow� ned �� ��m��� ��ho� ��h�� ��old �����kr�� � carved, ���d ��quipped �with ���� ��h� �������ry �f�������� �for � tex� �books. �Th� ���m��� �of �P���� �did ��o� ��u�� ��h� �family. � ����� ����grim� �from ���� �over ��h� �world. � Sunderlal Jain and Shantilal Jain decided to settle in Var- Af� ter ��h� d� eath of� ��under��� �����, w� ith ��h� ���m of� ho� n- ����� (U� ttar Pr� adesh) wh� er� ���1950 � ��hey ����rted ��fresh ��� � oring �h�� �ommitm��� ��o ������ ���udies, �MLBD �reated � � ��m��� ��ublisher �of �����kr�� �book� �o� �����rature, �drama, � the Lala Sunderlal Jain Research Series. � �To �date, ��wen- �� .Th� ey ����o r� eprinted ��om� of� ��h� book� s, ����uding ��h� � ty-thr�� vo� lum�� o� � ����� ���ud��� h� av� b� ��� ��ublished u� n- ���� �works, �which �had �b��� ��ublished ��� �. der ��h�� ���ries, ��dited �by �Prof ��.R. �Banerj�� �of �Calcu��� � Th� �family �����r �moved ��o �Delh� �wher� ��� �1957 ��hey � University. �Th� �fir�� �volume, �Jain Yoga �by ��. �William� � constructed � � building � �� � Bungalow � �oad, � ���r � Delh� � of ��OAS, �originally ��ublished ��� �Oxford ��� �1963, �w�� � University, ���d ����rted ��book � stor� ���d ��ublishing hou� se. � � re-published ���1987. � O� ther ������� ����ud� Harmless� Souls Th�� �w�� ��o �becom� ��h� �Head �Office. by W.� J. ��ohnso� (1995),� �� ��ranslatio� of� H.v.� G� lasenapp’� � Initially, m� ajor ��ublishing ���D � elh� �����red o� � r� eprint- (1925/1997) �Jainism, ���d ��h� �English ��ranslatio� �of �W. � ing �out-of-pr��� �book� ��h�� �had �b��� ��ublished ���rlier ��� � Schubring’� (2000)� Doctrine� of the Jainas, fir� �� ��ublished � Lahore. �I� �1962 �under ��h� �guid��� ���d ��uggestio�� �of � by �MLBD ��� �1962, ���d �of ��h� �Tattvārtha Sūtra, �which � Dr � ��dhakrishnan, � �h� � former � vice-presid��� � of � India, � w�� ��ranslated ����o �English �by �Nathm�� T� ���� �(2007). � th� �firm ����rted �reprinting ��h� ���r��� �Sacred Books of the I� ��dditio� ��o ��h� ���ries, �other ��mpor���� ����� �work� � East, ��dited by� F.� M� ax Mü� ller. �Th � � ���r��� �omprised fif� ty � published include: Collected Papers on Jaina Studies by volumes, ��wo �of �which �omprised ��ranslatio�� �from ��h� � P.S. ������(2000), � ���d Elements� of Jaina Geography: The ���� ���on. � � Jumbūdvīpasaṃgrahaṇī of Haribhadra Sūri, � ritically � Becau�� �of ��h� �unavailability �of �old �����kr�� �work� ��� � edited &� ��ranslated w� ith ��h� �ommentary of� Pr� abhānand� � th� � �������� � ��x���� � ��d � ��venties, � �h� � organisatio� � ��- Sūri, �by �F. V� �� �D�� �Bossch� �(2007). proached ��h� �Governm��� �of �Ind�� ��o ��ubsid��� ��ublish- ing of� ����xpensiv� r� epr���� of� ��mpor���� �������� ���x�� of� � N.P. Jain, the Senior Director of MLBD currently serves Sanskr�� ���d �Prakrit. �Eventually, ��� ub�� lished ��mpor���� � as the ‘Vice-Chairman’ of the Bhogilal Institute of In- work� � �uch � �� � Śabda Druma �� � 5 � volumes, � ��d � dology, established in 1984 to promote Jain and Prakrit other �work� �of �����kr�� ���d �Prakr�� �����rature. �I� �1975, � Studies through publications, seminars/workshops on Sunderlal Jain and Shantilal Jain began a collaboration Prakrit and Jain Studies and an annual ‘Summer School for Advanced Prakrit and Jain Studies’. 44 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

Jaina Studies Series

Series editor: Peter Flügel ______Schoo� �of �Or������ ���d Afr� ��� ���udies, � University �of �Londo� �

����� ���ud��� �hav� �becom� ��� ������d ���r� �of ��h� ���udy � of �����gion. �Th�� ���r��� ��rovid�� �� �medium �for �regular � scholarly ��xchang� ��ro�� d� isciplinary bou� ndaries. I� � w� ��� � includ� ��dited �volum�� ���d �monograph� �o� �������m ���d � th� ������.

Volume One: Studies in Jaina History and Culture: Dis- putes and Dialogues, edited �by �Peter �Flüg�� (� SOAS).

Th�� �book �break� ���w �ground �by ���vestigating ��h� �doc- trinal differences and debates amongst the Jains rather th�� ��resenting �������m ��� �� ����m���� �who�� �who�� �doc- tr���� �or� �h�� �remained �virtually �unchanged ��hroughou� � ��� ��ong �history. �Th� �focu� �of ��h� �book ��� ��h� � �discour�� � concerning �orthodoxy ���d �heresy ��� ��h� ������ r�� adition, � th� �qu � estio� of� om� ������� ���d ������ ��ogic, ro� �� mod� ��� � for �wom�� ���d �fem��� ��dentity, ������ ��hoo�� ���d �����, � religiou� ��roperty, ���w ���d ���hics. Th� � � �����r��� �diversity � of ��h� ������ ��raditio� ���d ����� ���hniqu�� �of ���ving �with � diversity ��r� ��xplored �from ��� �����rdisciplinary ��o��� �of � view � by � fif���� � � ���ding � �holar� � �� � ����� ���udies. �Th� � contributors focus on the principal social units of the tra- dition: ��h� ��hools, �movements, ����� ���d �orders, �rather � th�� �����r � eligiou� �ultur� ��� b�� stract. �Th � �� book� ��rovid�� � � � representativ� � �����ho� � of �h � � � urr��� � ����� � of � ����� � pretatio� �of ��h� ������ �Tem���� ��� �Khajuraho, ��u��� �A. �B. � stud��� ��h�� w� ��� �����r��� ���ud���� ���d ���dem�� ���volved � Hegewald �14. � ������L � aw ��� ���U � noffi��� L� eg�� ��ystem, � �� ��h� ���udy �of � �religio� �or ��outh A� ���� �ultures. � � Werner M� ensk� �15. � Ah� iṃsā ���d Com� passio� ��� �������m, � Kr���� L.� W� iley �I � ndex �M � arch 2006:� 234x156:� 512� �� Hb:� � Contents 0-415-36099-4

Par� 1:� Or� thodoxy ���d H� eresy �1. � Add� � or� ��h� O� ld��� Ex� - Volume Two: History, Scripture and Controversy in a ���� �Dispu�� �betw��� ������ ���d �Her���� �(Sūyagaḍ� �2,6), � Medieval Jain Sect, Pau� � Dundas, � University � of � Edin- William � Bollé� � � 2. �Th� � Later � Fortu��� � of � mā�� li, � Pau� � burgh. Dund�� �3. � Th� � D� ating of� ��h� ������Cou � ncils: Do� ��holar- ly �Presentatio�� ���fl�� ��h� �Traditio��� ��ources? ��oy� � Th� ��ubj�� �of ��h�� �fi�� �book ��� ��h� �history ���d ��������- Wiles Part 2: The Question of Omniscience and Jaina tu�� ����vity of� ��h� m� ediev�� Śv� etāmbar� �����d � isciplinary � Log� � � 4. � Th� � ����-Mīmāṃsā � Deb��� � o� � Omniscience, � order, ��h� �Tapā �Gaccha. � �Th� �over��� ��hem� �of ��h�� �book � O��� Qv� arnström �5. � Why� mu� �� ��her� b� � ���Om � ������� ��� � is the consolidation from the thirteenth century by the Jainism? ���� �Fujinag� � �6. �Implicatio�� �of ��h� �Buddhist- Tapā �Gacch� �of ���� ��dentity ��� ��h� �dom����� �Śvetāmbar� � ����� � Dispu�� � over � �h� � Fallaciou� � Exam��� � �� � Nyāya- ���� � disciplinary � order. � Thank� �o � � �h� � �uthor’� � �xcep- Bindu and Nyāyāvatāra-Vivṛti, P� iotr B� alcerowicz �P � ar� 3:� � tio��� �knowledg� �of ��h� �field, ��h� ��o�� ��� how�� � ��� ��rac- Ro�� Mod� ��� for� Wom� �� ���d F� em��� Id� entity �7. � �����ric- tice to be central to our understanding of many of the tio�� � ��d � Protection: � Fem��� � ���� � ���ouncers, �h � erry � key �questio�� ��holar� �hav� �b��� ���king ��bou� ��h� �his- E. �Fohr � �8. �Thinking �Collectively ��bou� ����� ����īs: �Th� � tory ���d �development, ��o� �ju�� �of �������m, �bu� �of ��outh � U��� �of ����� ����ī �Nam� �Lists, �Whitney �Kelting � �9. ���- A���� �religiou� ��raditio�� ��� �general, ����uding ��h� �way � ligious Practice and the Creation of Personhood among �� �which ��raditio�� �����blish ���d �m������� ��heir ��uthority � Śvetāmbar �Mūrtipūjak ����� �Wom�� ��� �����ur, ��oseph��� � �� �relatio� ��o ���xts, ��h� �relationsh�� �betw��� ���xt, �om- Rey���� � �Par� �4: � ����r��� �Movem���� � �10. � ���hinking � mentary ���d ��radition, ������ud�� ��o �fem��� r� eligiosity, ���d � Religiou� �Authority: �A �Perspectiv� �o� ��h� �Follower� �of � tensio�� bo� th w� ith�� ���d b� etw��� �����. D� ecember 2006:� � Śrīmad ��ājacandra, �Emm� ������r � �11. �A �Fifteenth �Cen- 234x156: �256�� �Hb: �0-415-37611-4: �£65.00 � � tury �Digambar �My��� ���d �h�� �Contemporary �Followers: � Tāraṇ �Tāraṇ ��vāmī ���d ��h� �Tāraṇ ��vāmī �Panth, ��oh� �E. � Paul Dundas ��� �����or �Lecturer ��� �����kr�� ��� ��h� �Uni- Cor� �12. � D� emograph� Tr� end� ��� ������Mo � nasticism, �P � e- versity �of �Edinburgh, ��otland. �H�� ��reviou� �book, �The ter F� lüg�� �P � ar� 5:� Pro� perty, L� aw ���d E� th�� �13. � Ar� chitec- Jains, ��� ����o ��vailab�� from� ��outledge. � � tural, ��ulptur�� ���d �����giou� �Change: A� �New �Inter- 45 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF JAINA STUDIES Now available in print

Centre of Jaina Studies INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL School of Oriental and African Studies OF University �of �Londo� � JAINA STUDIES

Volume 1-3 Editor: 2005-2007 Peter �Flügel

Editorial Advisory Board:

Mark Allon Ju��� �Hegewald Lawr��� A.� �Babb Padmanabh ��. ������ N����� B� albir William ��. ��ohnson Piotr �Balcerowicz Whitney �M. �Kelting Bansidhar �B. �Bhatt Korneliu� �Krümpelmann Willem �B. �Bollée Jam�� �Laidlaw Joh����� �Bronkhorst Padmanabhaiah �Nagarajaiah Frank �v�� �d�� �Bossch� � O��� �Qvarnström Chr������ �Chojnacki Josephine Reynell Joh� �E. �Cort Maria Schetelich Ev� �D� �Clerq ������ ��öhnen-Thieme Paul Dundas Jayandra Soni Christoph Emmrich Royce Wiles Anna Aurelia Esposito Kr���� �L. W� iley CONTENTS ��� �Fujinaga Clifford ��. Wr� ight Phyllis Granoff Rober� �Zydenbos PETER FLÜGEL Th� �Inventio� �of �������m: A� ��hor� �History �of ������ ���udies

WILLEM �B. BOLLÉE� � � Submissions: Review �of A� chary� �Kundkund B� ar��� A� nuvekkh� � �

KORNELIU� K� RÜMPELMANN � � Manuscripts should be submitted to the editor Th� ���hānāṅgasūtra: A� � �Encyclopaed� T� ex� �of ��h� Śv� etāmbar� � v�� ��-m��� �����hment: ��[email protected] Canon

PETER FLÜGEL Sty�� �onventio�� ��r� �����fied �o� ��h� �����r��� ���g�� of� � ����� �Philosophy ���d �����gio� �(A ���view Ar� ticle) � � th� �IJJS: �www.soas.ac.uk/ijjs

WILLIAM ��. ��OHNSON � � Ar� ������ �Eth�� ������y U� niversal? � � Subscriptions:

WILLEM �B. BOLLÉE� � � Subscriptions and orders for the IJJS should be sent to Subj�� �Index �of ��h� �Inventory of� ��h� ���or��� ��� �N. B� albir’� � Āvaśyak� ���ud��� � � the publisher:

WILLEM �B. BOLLÉE� � A �No�� o� � ��h� �Pā�� Tr� aditio� ��� ��h� U� niver��� H� istory �of ��h� � Digambar�� ���d Śv� etâmbar�� �(Guṇabhadra, M� ahāpurāṇa, � HINDI GRANTH KARYALAY Utt. 73)� � � Publishers Since 1912 9 Hirabaug C P Tank JEAN-PIERRE O� SIE� � � Blind F� aith A� ccording ��o ��h� �������: Th� � Y� am� C� ��� � � Mumb�� 400004� �INDIA Phone: �0091 �(022) �23826739, �20356659 PETER FLÜGEL E-mail: �[email protected] A ��hor� �History of� ������L � aw Web: �http://www.hindibooks.8m.com FUJINAGA ��IN � � Digambar� A� ttitud�� ��o ��h� Śv� etāmbar� �Cano� � �

DIWAKA� ACHA� RYA � � ©2007 �by Th� � �Editor, �Internatio��� ��our��� of� ������ � Th� �Orig���� �Paṇhavāyaraṇ� �/ Pr� aśnavyākaraṇ� �Discovered � � Studies, A� �� �righ�� �reserved � � � � ISBN �978-81-88769-36-0

46 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

International Journal of Jaina Studies Prakrit Jñānabhāratī (Online) International Awards

ISSN: 1748-1074 2005-2006 Th� � Prakr�� � �ñānabhāratī � Internatio��� � Award � �� �re- Published by the sented to an eminent scholar of international recogni- Centre of Jaina Studies tio� �who �h�� �rendered �� ���gnifi��� �ontributio� ��o ��h� � SOAS developm��� � of � Prakr�� � ud�� ies. � Th� � �ward � �� �dmin- istered �by ��h� �Natio��� �Institu�� �of �Prakr�� ���ud��� ���d � About the IJJS Research � �� � Śravaṇabeḷagoḷ� � (Karnataka, � India). � Th� � Institu�� � w�� � ����blished � �� � 1993, � under � �h� � g�� �� � of � th� �Śrutakevalī �Educatio� �Trust, ��o ��ropag��� ���d ��ro- The Centre of Jaina Studies mo�� �Prakr�� ���ud��� ���d �research. �Under ��h� �guid��� � at SOAS established the of �Śrī �Cārukīr�� �Bhaṭṭārak� �jī, ��h� �Institu�� �h�� �begu� ��o � International Journal of Jaina Studies (Online) to fa- publish translations of the Dhavalā, Jayadhavalā and cilitate academic communication. The main objective of Mahādhavalā, � �h� � �hr�� � ���brated �omm  entar��� � o� � the journal is to publish research papers, monographs, the Ṣaṭkhaṇḍāgama � ���o � Kannada. � I� � �� � ���o � �ublish- and reviews in the field of Jaina Studies in a form that ing �bilingu�� ���x�� ��� �Prakr�� ���d �Kannad� ��o �f�������� � makes them quickly and easily accessible to the interna- Prakr�� ����hing ���d ����rning. � �Th� �Institu�� �ho��� ���mi- tional academic community, and to the general public. nar� ���d work� sho�� wh� ich fo� cu� o� � Pr� akrit, ��r � epository � The journal draws on the research and the symposia con- of �Ind��� �Culture. �With ��h� ���m �of �����rging ��h� ��o�� � of �Prakr�� ���udies, ��h� �Prakr�� ��ñānabhāratī �Internatio��� � ducted at the Centre of Jaina Studies at the University of Award � w�� � ������uted � �� � 2004; � �� �ompr���� � � � �����on, � London and on the global network of Jaina scholarship. memento, ���d �� ���h ��riz� �of ���.1 �Lakh. The opinions expressed in the journal are those of the authors, and do not represent the views of the School of Th� fir� �� ��ward ���2004 � w� ��� ��o Prof� essor P� admanabh ��. � Oriental and African Studies or the Editors, unless other- ����� �of ��h� �University �of �Califor��� ��� �Berkeley. �Now � wise indicated. th� � Institu�� � �� �roud � ���ou�� � �h� � �ward��� � for � �h� � years 2005 and 2006: nestor scholars Professor Willem The International Journal of Jaina Studies is a publica- Bollé� �(Bamberg) ���d �Professor �Klau� �Bruh� �(Berlin), � tion of the Centre of Jaina Studies at the School of Ori- both � from � Germany � d�� � �uthor� � of � ground-breaking � work� ��� �Prakr�� ���udies. �Th� ��ward ��remony �for �Prof. � ental and African Studies of the University of London. It Klau� �Bruh� � �w��� ���k� ����� ��� �Ber��� �o� �25-05-08 ��� � is available in two different forms: online at: www.soas. 10.30 ��m ��� ����yam �veg �����urant, �Goethstr �5, �10623 � ac.uk/ijjs and in print by Hindi Granth Karyalay. Articles Berlin-Charlottenburg, Pho� �� 030� 31806111.� Th� � ��ward � published online should be cited: International Journal ceremony for� Prof.� W� illem Bo� llé� w� ��� ���k� �����o � � 26-� of Jaina Studies (Online), and articles published in print: 05-08 � �� � 11.13 � �� �Würzburg � ��h � � � ����dency, �Tosk�� � International Journal of Jaina Studies. Saal. �Both ��v���� ��r� �fr�� ���d �o��� ��o ��h� ��ublic.

http://www.soas.ac.uk/ijjs/index.html For �mor� ���formatio� ��bou� ��h� ��remonies, ������� � contact: �Dr Aj� �� �Kumar �Benad� � (email:[email protected])

For �further ���formatio� �o� ��h� ��ward� ������� �ontact: � Digital Resources in Jaina Studies Director at SOAS Natio��� �Institu�� �of �Prakr�� ���ud��� ���d ������rch Dhav��� T� eertham, ��hravanabelago�� �573 �135 Karnataka, �India Th� �Centr� �of ������ ���ud��� �h�� ���k�� ��h� �fir�� ������ ��o- ward� � �h� � o��� � ���� �ublicatio� � of � rar� � resour�� � �� � dig���� �form �o� ���� �Website. �Th��� ����ud� �jour���� ���d � manuscripts. � Mater���� � �quired � by �h � � �AHRB � Funded � Proj�� �o� ������ �Law ��r� ��� ��h� �form �of �dig���� ��mag�� � of m� anuscr���� ���d ��rinted ���xts.To m� ak� ��h��� m� ater���� � publicly ��vailable, �� �����o� �for �Dig���� ������ ����our�� � w�� ���� �u� �o� ��h� �Centr� �website:

http://www.soas.ac.uk/jainastudies

47 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

New Prakrit Courses at SOAS

Renate Söhnen-Thieme ______

� � �OAS, � research � o� � Prakr�� � h�� � � �ong � �radition, � with � well-know� � �holar� � ��k� � ��r � ����h � Turner, � JAoh� �Brough, ��ober� �Williams, ���d �Padmanabh ��. ������. � This has been continued more recently by John Gray and � Clifford �Wright. � Major � work� � ��h � �� � field � wer� � �. � Brough'� � The Gandhari Dharmapada � (1962), � �. � Wil- liams'� � �Jaina Yoga �(1963), ���d �Turner'� �A Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages (1966), � with � Wrigh� ��� �o ��ditor. �Th� ������r ����o ��ublished �� �volum� � of �Addend� �(1985) ���d �ontinued �working �o� �� ��roj�� � Citrakalpasūtra of ��upplementing ��h� �Dictionary, ��� �mor� ��vid��� �from � th� v� ��� bu� lk of� �����ratur� ���Pr � akr�� ���d A� pabhraṃś� w� �� � of � Prakrit, �om  plemented � with � �om� � b��� � grammar � being � mad� � �����b�� � �� � ��w � �ditions. � I� �h � �� � �roj�� � exercises. �Th�� �w��� �b� ��ompanied �by ��h� ���udy �of ��x- Prakr�� ����������� ���k� �Edith �Nolot, �Chr������ �Chojnacki, � tr��� �from ��h� ����� ���rrativ� ���x� �Maṇipaticarita, �which � and Kor� neliu� Krüm� pelm��� w� er� ����o ��uccessively ��m- compr���� � ver��� � �� � both � �h� � ������� � Māhārāshtr� � ��d � ployed. ��oh� Gr� ay ���d ��� r�� stwh��� �olleagu� ����y� ����- old � Māgadhī � d������ � of � Prakrit. � Th�� � ����rtaining � ���� � j�� �Banerj�� �hav� �both �mad� �ontributio�� ��o ��h� ���udy � provid�� �����gh� ����o ��h� �Prakr�� �or�� ���ory-telling ��radi- of ��h� �Prakr�� �grammar���� ��� ��h� ��hool. � tio� ��h�� ��o� o� nly ��dd� ����� ��o ��h� �����d � id��� �����rature, � Teaching �of �P��� ���d �Prakr�� �w�� ���way� �firmly �����- but also underlies the classical literary genres of prose grated ����o ��h� �orig���� �four-year �BA �����kr�� ���d ��wo- and � ver�� � rom��� � ��d � oper��� � drama. � Th�� � ���roduc- year �MA �����kr�� �ourses. �Prakr�� ��ro�� ���d ��yr� �ver�� � tory �our�� w� ��� b� � �onducted ���rom � �� ��ransliteration, ��� � wer� ���udied ��� h�� � �ontex�� of� ��������I � nd��� dr� am� ���d � used in the more critical and satisfactory editions of Jain Ind��� ��o��� ��heory. A� � ��h� ���r����� �histor��� ��our�� �of � texts. �I� �do�� ��o� �������rily ��resuppo�� ���y �knowledg� � ������ I� ndia, Pr� akr�� ����riptio�� w� er� ���udied ���o � ptio�� � of �� ��re-moder� I� nd��� ����guag� (� although ���ud���� w� ith � with�� �both �����kr�� ���d �History �degr�� �ourses. �Even- som� �knowledg� �of �����kr�� �or �P��� �w��� �find ����� ��o � tually ��� �MA �Prakr�� �our�� �offered �variou� �options: �'A � Prakr�� �mor� � �����y). � ��ud���� �of � �h� � ���� �raditio� �(in- selected �genr� �of �Prakr�� �����rature', � �'Apabhraṃś� �����ra- cluding MA and research students) may select this option ture', �'H � istory ���d gr� ammar of� ��h� Pr� akr�� L� anguage', ���d � instead �of �P��� �or �����krit. � 'Prakr�� ����graphy'. Th� ���ond h� alf-u��� �our�� ���d � esigned for� ��ho�� who� � With �h � � � �mplementatio� � of �h � � � ourse-u��� � �ystem � � w��� ��o d� ����� ��heir u� nderstanding of� Pr� akr�� ���d ��o �on- and the drastic reduction of teaching staff in the San- tinu� �reading �Prakr�� ���x�� ��� ��h� �original. �Th� �������o� � skr�� �����on, ��h� �old ����hing-intensiv� �fu�� �BA �degr�� � of ��h��� ���x�� �w��� ���rtly �depend �o� ��h� �����fi �����r��� � cour�� �had ��o �b� �giv�� �up. �Instead �� ���w �BA �half-degr�� � of ��h� ���dividu�� �group. �For ���ud���� �from �� ����� �back- �� �����kr�� �w�� ����roduced, ��o �b� �oupled �with ���other � ground �or �with ��� �����r��� ��� ��h� �religio� ��h� ��mph���� � subj�� � (mostly � �upplied � by � �h� � w�� ly � ����blished � De- w��� b� � o� � ��xcer��� from� ��h� ����� ��riptur�� ���d ���rrativ� � partm��� for� ��h� ���udy of� �����gions). Th� � MA� d� egr��� ��� � literature, bu� � �� ���r� of� ��h� ����� ���m� w� ��� ����o b� � d� edicat- Sanskr�� ���d Pr� akr�� ����o d� isappeared, bu� � ��om� �����krit- ed to other important contributions of Prakrit to classical based �MA �our��� �wer� ��rovided �with�� ��h� �framework � Ind��� �ulture, ��uch ��� ����riptio�� ���d �our� ��oetry. Th� � � of �other �MA ��rogramm�� ��� ��h� ��hool. � cour�� �w��� ��ormally �b� �oncerned �with �mater��� ��vail- Now, � with � �h� � ��w � ���ointm��� � of � � full-tim� � ���ff � ab�� ��� �rom�� ��ransliteration. member ��o ��h� �����kr�� �����on, ��h� �ho�� �of �our��� �o� � Although ��h��� �our��� ��r� ��xamined �wh�� ���k�� ��� � offer � �� � b� � mor� � diversified. � Fresh � ����r��� � ���rred � u� � par� of� ��BA � or� MA� d� egr�� ��rogramme, ��hey m� ay b� � ����o � by �member� �of ��h� �Centr� �of ������ ���ud��� �(founded ��� � usefu� � for � research � ��ud���� � who�� � �o�� � �� �oncerned � March 2004 at the Department of the Study of Religions) with ��h� �history, �ulture, �or �religiou� �developm��� �of ��h� � h�� ���d ��o �� ��oser �ooperatio� �betw��� ��h� �Centr� ���d � tim�� ��h�� ��roduced �docum���� �wr����� ��� �Prakrit. th� ��outh �A��� �Department. �A� �� �result, ��wo ���w �half- u��� �our��� ���Pr � akr�� h� av� b� ��� d� esigned, wh� ich w� ��� b� � � ru� �from ��h� ���x� ������o� �(2008-09) �onward. �I� ��� �hoped � th�� ��h�� �����r��� �w��� ���rease, ����ding ��o �mor� ��dvanced � Renate Söhnen-Thieme is a Senior Lecturer in Sanskrit, courses on read in the original Prakrit Departmentof the Languages and Cultures of South Asia [ther� ��� �of �our�� ����� �����ratur� ��� �other ����guag�� �…]. at SOAS. I� ord� er ��o ��rovid� f� amiliarity w� ith b� ��� ����gu���� f� ea- tur�� of� ��h� ����guage, r� equired for� r� eading ��our� ���x�� ��� � th� or� ig���� ����guage, ��h� fir� �� of� ��h� ���w h� alf-u��� �ours- �� �w��� ��rovid� ��� ����roductio� ��o ��h� ����gu���� ���ructur� �

48 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

Prakrit Summer School 2007 in Finland

Petteri Koskikallio ______h� �2007 �Prakr�� ��ummer ��hoo� �w�� ���������y �de- signed for� ���ud���� of� �����kr�� who� h� av� ��o ��ossibil- itTy ��o ���udy �Prakr�� ��� ��heir �hom� �universities, �bu� �who � would ���k� ��o g� �� ��quainted w� ith ��h� ��reasury of� ����� ���� � and ���rrativ� �����rature. �Mad� ��ossib�� �by �� �gr��� �from � th� � Em�� �Aalto��� � Foundation, � �h� � 2007 � Prakr�� � �um- mer ��hoo� ������o� ��ook ����� �from ��uly �23 ��o Augu� �� �4, � 2007 in the peaceful countryside milieu �of ���������mi, � �� ��h� ���k� d� istr�� of� ������r� F� inland. Org� anizer� Ev� � D� � � Clercq ���d A� ��� Aur� ���� �Esposito ����d ��� ����her� ���d � Petter� �Koskikallio �w�� ��h� ��r����� �organizer. � Th� �2007 ������o� �w�� �focused �o� ��ost-cano���� ����� � material. � Ev�� � �hough � �h�� � fir�� � meeting � of �h � � � �um- mer ��hoo� �had �� �rather ���gh� ���metable, ����v�� ���ud���� � joined ��h� �ourse. �Th� ���rticipants’ �m��� �����r���� �wer� � varied � ��ough, � ranging � from � ���gu����� � ��d � religiou� � stud��� � �o � ����ratur� � ��d � �hilosophy. �Th� � ��ud���� � wer� � from F� inland (4),� B� elgium (3),� ��h� U� SA (2),� G� ermany (1)� � and �Isr��� �(1). � Th� ���r�������� r� eceived ��� ����roductio� ��o ��h� fi� eld of� � Prakr�� ���g � ener�� ���d ��o ��h� gr� ammar of� ������-Māhārāṣṭrī � �� ���rticular. �A �������o� �of ��re-reading� �o� �Prakr�� ����- guag�� ���d ����� ���� ���d ���rrativ� �����ratur� �w�� �distrib- uted b� eforehand. O� nly ��fter �� ��wo-day ����roductio� ��o ��h� � grammar d� id ��h� grou� � ����r� r� eading ��h� ������-Māhārāṣṭrī � tex� ������ges. Abou� � �half �of ��h� ���ud���� �had ��om� ��rior � exper���� w� ith r� eading Pr� akr�� ���xts. A� Reference Manu- al of Middle Prakrit Grammar by Fr� ank v� �� d� �� Bo� ssch� � (G��� �1999) �w�� �used ��� h�� � ��r������ �refer��� �gram- mar ��hroughou� ��h� �ourse, bu� � P� isch�� w� �� u� sed ��oo. Th� � � tex� ������g�� �wer� �������d �from ��h� �Vasudevahiṇḍi and Paümacariya. � I� ��dditio� ��o ��h� �����ons, ��h� ���ud���� �had ������y �of � possib������� �for �jo��� �reading ��ractices, ��xchang� �of ��de- as, �ooking ��ogether, ��wimming, ���una, ���. Th� � ��ummer � School contained also much sightseeing in the nearby ar- ��� ���d �� �few ��r��� ��o ��h� ���y �of ���vonlinna. � Th� �onvener� �of �Prakr�� ��ummer ��hoo� �w��� ��rry � o� �with ��h� ��roj�� �which �go� �� ��romising ����r� ����� ��um- mer. Th� � ��d�� ��� ��o �ontinu� org� anizing �our��� ���d r� ead- ing sessions in an informal atmosphere for students and scholar� �����rested ��� ����� ���� ���d ���rrativ� �����rature. � ���� ���o���� ���x�� �migh� �b� ����uded ��� ��h� �futur� �ur- riculum. � Selected � glim���� � back � �o � �ummer � 2007, � �� � w��� � �� � updated ������ �for ��h� �future, ��r� ��vailab�� ��� ��h� �web���� � of the Prakrit Summer School: http://www.indologie.uni-wuerzburg.de/prakrit_sum- mer_school/

Petteri Koskikallio is a non-affiliated Indologist residing in Rantasalmi, Finland. He is an editor of several Indo- logical volumes. His main interests are Epic and Purāṇic literatures of India.

49 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

Jaina Studies Student Forum in San Diego

Anne Vallely ______he opening session of the Dharma Traditions of u�� �w��� ��� �undertaking ��h� �measur�� �������ry ��o �work � North �Amer�� �(DANAM) ���r����� �meeting� ��� ��h� � ag����� �karm� �bonding ��� ��h� �ondu� �of �one’� ���fe. �H�� � 2007T Am� er��� A� cademy of� �����gio� (AA� R) Co� nfer��� � paper ��xplored ��h� �u�� �of ��h� ������ �horosco�� ��� �������m � �� ���� �Diego �w�� �devoted ��o �� ������ �o� �������m �giv�� � �� �� �m���� �of ��dentifying ���rsonal, �karm� ��umulatio� � by gr� adu��� ���d u� ndergradu��� ���ud���� from� ��h� U� niver- and, ��dditionally, ��� ��m � ���� of� ��ffectively m� anaging ��h� � sity of� O� ttawa. Th� ��� ���ud���� w� er� ���r� of� �� ���rger grou� � � condu� �of �one’� ���f� ��o ��� ��o �b��� ���rv� ��h� ��oul’� ��oteri- who ���rticipated ��� ��h� ����ugur�� �2007 �University �of �Ot- olog��� obj� ectiv� �(i.e., mokṣa� ). � � taw� ��ummer �our�� �����fically fo� cused o� � �������m. Th� � � M.A. ���ud��� �Mé����� ���ucier’� �����r, �‘Th� �Id��� �& � cour�� � w�� � reated � ��ffi � liatio� � with � �h� � Internatio��� � th� ����� ���D � igambar� �������m‘ ��xplored ��h� w� ��� k� now� � Summer � �hoo� � for � ���� � ��udies, � d�� � ���� � 2008, � �� � ��� Digambar� ��rgum��� ��h�� wom� �� ��r� ������b�� of� ��hiev- also ��ffiliated �with ��h� ��hastri-Indo-Canad��� �Institute. ing spiritual liberation because of their close association Th� � ��ud��� � ����r� � �ddressed � �h� � over��� �h � em� � of � with ��h� �world �of �matter, �du� ��o ��heir �bodies. �Her �����r � ‘Dharma, � Karma and Mokṣa � �� � Dharm� � Traditions’. � discussed how� D� igambar� ������wom � en’� ���f� ��xperienc- ����� �Gunn, �who�� �doctor�� �work �focu��� �Hindu �devo- �� �of��� �differ �from �wh�� ��� ��xpected �of ���d �for ��hem ��� � tio��� ��raditio�� ��� �Canada, �gav� �� �����r ��������d �‘Tread- th� ��riptures, ���d ��� �focused �o� ��h� �ro�� �of �� ��umber �of � ing the Mokṣa Mārga ��� ����k �������rs: �A �Tur� �Toward � ‘pioneer’ �Digambar� ��u�� �who �����blished �� ��rom����� � th� L� ived Ex� per���� of� ������Dharma � ’. H� er �����r �����d � ���� � �� � religio� � rg�� ely � dominated � by � men. � Bradley � upo� ��holar� ��o �re-imag��� �������m ��� ��uch �� �way ��h�� � Boileau’� � ����r, � �������d � ‘Prekṣā Dhyāna and the Jain popular � �mbigu����� � ��d � �mprovisatio�� � �r� � brough� � Yog� �Paradox’ �focused �o� �prekṣā dhyāna as one of the with�� ��h� �realm �of �‘th� ���gitimate’ ���d ��hereby ����uded � exceptio�� ��o ��h� �gener�� �ru�� ��h�� ������ ���y ������� ������- �� �our ��reatm���� �of �������m. ��h� ��rgued ��h�� ��uspicious- tio� ��o ��h� �mor� ���oter� ����h� �of ��wakening ��o �heavily � ���� ���d �worldly �benefi� ��r� ����r�� �go��� �of ����� �ritu�� � favoured by� o� ther I� nd��� ��hools. Bu� � ��h� ��r������ fo� cu� � practice, � �� � �� ���riving � �oward � ��beration, � ��d � �hat, � �� � of �h�� �����r �w�� �o� �how ��h� ��hilosophy �behind �prekṣā sh� ��u� ���, �o�� ��� ��read ��� ������ ��om� �d������ ���ong ��h� � dhyāna ���d ���� ���hniqu�� ������r ��o �b� �flexib�� ���ough � mokṣa mārga ��� ����k �������rs. ��h� �oncluded �by ���viting � to ���om���� �both �other-worldly ���d ��his-worldly �goals, � us, ��� ���ud���� of� �������m, ��o ���rm�� �ontradictio�� ���our � � and ��o ��hereby �differently �onceptualiz� ��h� ��oul'� �rela- presentatio� �of �������m, ���d ��o �onsider ��h� ��mplicatio�� � tionsh�� �with ��h� ����r�� �o����� �of �karma, dharma and of ��h� w� ay� ���wh � ich w� � ���udy, ���d ����h, ����� ���ounter� � mokṣa. � with ��h� ���red. � ��o�� �Clark’� �����r, �‘���� �Identity �Poli- Gabr��� � �ones’� � ‘Warring � Natures: � Marwar � ulture, � tics: Ahiṃsā, �Anekāntavada and Aparigraha in a World th� �Ksatriy� ���ho� ���d ��h� �Terāpanthī ����� �of ���jasthan’ � of �Others’, �ontinued ��h� �discussio� �of �both �����der ���d � explored ��h� �Terāpanthī �Śvetāmbaras’ ���r�� ���d �uncom- outsider �m � agining� � of � ������m, � ��d � wh�� � �hey � �� � ���� � promising ethic of ahiṃsā ��� �� ��rodu� �of ���� �Marwar� � u� � �bou� �h � � � ontemporary � �radition. � H� � �xplored � how � cultur�� � ontext. � H�� � ����r � raised � ���riguing � questio�� � ���� ��oteriolog��� �o����� �- �wh��� ���������� ��o ��h� �dis- abou� � how � �h� � Terapanth� � ��ho� � migh� � reflect, � ��d � b� � cour�� �of �renunciatio� �– ��r� ����o �fundam����� ������� �of � culturally ���formed, by� ��Kṣ � atriy� ���ho� ‘� turned ���ward’. � � high-lev�� � ���� �dentity � �olitics. � H�� � ����r � onsidered � Finally, �Pau� �LeBlanc’� �����r �‘Th� �Tīrthaṅkar� ���d ��h� � the strategic social uses Jainism’s concepts are often put Übermensch’ �ompared ����� o�� teriology, ���d ���� ��otio�� � to, ��� �� �way �of �defining ��h� �uniqu����� �of �������m ��� �� � of dharma, �karma and mokṣa, �with ��h�� �of �Nietzsch��� � broader ��on-���� �ontext. ������ �Ferrey’� �����r ��ooked ��� � metaphy��� � �� � way � of � onstructing � � reflective, � ��d � th� �������utio� �of ����� ��� ��h� ����� ��radition, ��rguing ��h�� � personal, �dialogu� �betw��� �Easter� ���d �Wester� ���h��� � although ������h � av� ��xplicitly r� ejected m� any of� ��h� ��radi- ideolog��� ��h�� ��merged �from �LeBlanc’� �ow� ���ud��� ��� � tio��� �Brahm����� ��otio�� �of �����, �other ��d��� ����r���� � India. �Th� ������ ��otio� �of �tīrthaṅkara as a personal ar- to ��h� ��urviv�� of� ��h� ����� ��ystem h� av� ����yed ��� ��qually � chety�� w� �� d� iscussed u� sing �� �omparativ��� ����roach ��� � signifi��� ro� �� for� ������ ���d o� � ����� ��deals. F� errey’� �����r � relatio� ��o ��h� �Nietzsch��� �metaphy�� �of ��h� �Übermen- focused �o� ��h� �way ������ �hav� �����rpreted ��h� ��raditio��� � sch. � ���� ��ystem ��o �����blish �� �uniquely ����� �understanding � Th� � ���� � ����� � ��h� � DANAM � ��ud��� � forum � w�� � of ��h�� ���rvasiv� ��o��� ���d ��onom� �������ution. � very � w��� � received, � ��d � h�� � ��d � �o � �ffor�� � (currently � �� � Doctor�� ���did��� �����h�� �B. �Quinlan’� �����r �‘As- progress) to establish Jaina Studies as a permanent fea- trology �& �Cosm� �Identity: �Connecting ��h� �N���� �Horo- tur� ��� ��h� ����u�� �DANAM �meetings. sco�� ��o ����� ��oteriolog��� �Ideology’, ����uated ����� ���- trology w� ith�� ��h� bro� ader ���udy of� �����k � arm� ��heory. H� � � argued that Jain karma theory distinguishes itself by an emphasis on the materiality of karmic substance in radi- �� �distinctio� ��o ��h� ����ur� �of ��h� ��ou� ��o �which ��� �bind� � �� ���fe, ���d �by ��� ��mph���� �o� ����f-determined, ���divid-

50 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

Certifcate in Jaina Studies VICTORIA & ALBERT MUSEUM at JAIN ART FUND

SOAS Research and Travel Grants, 2007-2008

Th� �V&A � ���� �Ar� � Fund � w�� � reated � �� � resu�� � of � Jain courses are open to members of the pub- th� ��xhibitio� �The Peaceful Liberators. Jain Art from lic who can participate as 'occasional' or 'cer- India (1994-96),� jo� intly org� anised by� ��h� Lo� � A� ng���� � tificate' students. The SOAS certificate in Jaina County Museum of Art and the Victoria and Albert Studies is a one-year program recognised by Museum. � the University of London. It can be taken in one year, or part-time over two or three years. The Th� V� ictor�� ���d A� lber� Mu� seum �����Ar � � Fu� nd, ��� ���- certificate comprises four courses, including sociatio� �with ��h� �Nehru �Tru�� �for ��h� �Ind��� �Collec- Jainism at the undergraduate level. Students tio� ��� ��h� �V&A, ��� �offering �� ���r��� �of �research ���d � can combine courses according to their indi- trav�� gr� ants, ��o b� � ��dministered u� nder ��h� ��u����� of� � vidual interests. th� �Nehru Tru� st, �New �Delhi.

The certificate is of particular value for individu- Th� �����Ar � � �Fund �gr���� �w��� ��uppor� ���udy, �research � als with an interest in Jainism who are not yet or ��raining ��� ��h� �field �of ����� �ultural, �histor��� ���d � in the university system, who do not have previ- ar� �histor��� ���udies. �They �w��� ��uppor� �both �Indian- ous university qualification, or who do not have based scholars and museum curators spending time in the time to pursue a regular university degree. th� �UK, ���d �UK-based ��holar� ���d �urator� �visiting � It provides an opportunity to study Jainism at an Ind�� �for ���udy ���d �research ��urposes. � academic level and is flexible to meet diverse personal needs and interests. I� ��h� fir� �� y� ear ��roposed –� 2007-08� –� o� �� ��holarsh�� � �� off� ered ��� ���h of� ��h� fo� llowing ����gor��� (r� equire- m���� ���d �onditio�� ��� ���r �Nehru Tru� �� ��wards). For information please contact: [email protected] 1. � �UK V� isiting �Fellowsh�� � �- �for �u� ��o �3 �month� �UK- � � � � based �research �(max. �gr��� �£3000).

2. � UK� Tr� av�� Aw� ard –� for� �2 � ��hor� � ���udy ��r�� ��ward� � � � � � � ��o ��h� �UK �(max. �£1000)

3. � � Ind�� Tr� av�� Aw� ard/� �– �for �UK-based �researcher� � � � � � ����d �urator� �(max. �£1000, ��ossibly �2 �gr���� �of � � � � � �£500)

To lodge an application please contact:

The Secretary Nehru Tru� �� �for ��h� �Collectio�� � at the Victoria & Albert Museaum c/o �Nehru Tru� �� �for �Cambridg� �University Teen House Teen Murti Marg New �Delh� �110 �011 India

For �d������ ������� ���� ��h� �website: www.nticva.org

Māhāvir� ��uāmī ��� �Madhuban, �Ind�� � � �(Photo: �Peter �Flügel)

51 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

Experiencing Jainism in Varanasi

Ellen Gough ______rom ������mber �2005 ��o �May �2006, �I ���rticipated ��� � th� �University �of �Wisconsin’� �Colleg� �Year ��� �Ind�� � pFrogram ���V � aranasi, ���d ��� ���r� of� ��h� ��rogram, I� h� ad ��h� � opportunity ��o �do �fieldwork �o� ��h� �worsh�� ������ ���d � pr����� of� ������ ���V � aranasi. Th� � ��xper���� ����roduced � m� ��o ��h�� r� eligio� of� ��onvio���� ���d ������red m� � ��o fur� - ther my� ���ud��� of� �������m ��� ��OAS. A� � ���Am � er��� u� n- dergradu��� who� h� ad ���rcely h� eard ��h� ���m� ‘M� ahāvīra’ � befor� ��rriving ��� �India, �my �onversatio�� �with ���y ���d � ����� ������, ���rticipatio� ���r � ituals, ���d ��rav��� ��hrough- ou� ��h� ���y ��o �����ogu� ��h� ������ �of �worsh�� ��rovided �

a foundation for the understanding of the tradition I am Ellen Gough trying ��o d� evelo� ���my � ������� ��� ��OAS. B� elow ��� ��br � ief � introductio� ��o ��h� v� aried form� � of� �������m I� ���ountered � �� V� aranasi. � Śvetāmbar� ���m��� ��� �Bhelapur Though not one of the most popular Jain pilgrimage spots, �� �����dy ���ream �of ����grim� ������ ��rav�� ��o �Var����� � o� ��ām� �Ghāṭ ��� ��h� ��orth �of ��h� ���y. �Becau�� �only �� � to �vener��� ��h� ��upposed �birth���� �of �four tīrthaṅkaras� : sm��� ��umber �of �regular �worshiper� �visited ��h��� ������, � Supārśvanāth� (7� th), C� andraprabh� (8� th), Śr� eyāṃsanāth� � I �w�� ��b�� ��o �����d �� ��o� �of ���m� �����king �with ��riests, � (11th), � ��d � Pārśvanāth� � (23rd). � Becau�� � Pārśv� � �� �h� � tem��� ������dants, ���d �devo���� of� ��h��� ���mples. � earliest tīrthaṅkara ��o �b� �historically �validated, ��om� �of � Th� � ��m��� � �� � ��rnath, � �bou� � ��x � m���� � �orth���� � of � my informants posited that Varanasi could hold claim to Var����� � �roper, � r���� � o� � �h� � believed � birth���� � of � the historical birthplace of Jainism around the ninth cen- Śreyāṃsanātha, �h � � � 11th � tīrthaṅkara. � Though � only � � tury B.C.E.� Wh� ��� ��h��� ����m� ��r� ��rtainly �ontentious, � handfu� � of � worshipper� � �����d � �h� � ��ghtly � āratīs and Var����� � ��verth����� � m�������� � � �ong � history � of � ���� � morning pūjās, �� �o������ �flow �of ��ourists, �having �om� � worship- ��h� ���r����� ����� ��mag�� �found ��� ��h� ���y �d��� � to � ��rnath � �o � ��� � wher� � �h� � Buddh� � gav� � h�� � fir�� � ��r- from ��h� �midd�� �of ��h� �5th ����ury �C.E. �(Sharm� �2000: � mon, �wander ��� ���d �ou� �of ��h� ���mple. �Th� ��o�� ��r���� � 42). Tod� ay, how� ever, ��o�� of� ��h� ���m���� ���V � ar����� ��r� � here, ��fter ���heriting h� �� job� from� h� �� f� ather 32� y� ear� ��go, � mor� ��h�� �200 �year� �old. ���� ���rched ��� ��h� ����r��� �of ��h� ���mple, �ready ��o �giv� � Ther� � �r� � �bou� � 1,600 � �mage-worshiping � �����— th� ��our���� �� �����d ����roductory �����on—com����� w� ith � around � 1,000 � Digambar�� � ��d � 600 � Śvetāmbaras—liv- photos-- ��bou� ��h� m� any b� enefi�� of� �������m. I� ������m � any � ing ��� �Var����� ��oday, ���d ����� h�� �� �300 �member� �of ��h� � afternoo�� ������d w� ith h� im, ��� ��h� ���m��� or� ���h � �� hom� e, � anico�� T� erāpanth�� ���d ���hānakavāsīs. From� my� �ount, � and wh� ��� h� � ����ked ��o hu� ndred� ��ourists, I� ���k� ��o ��hink h� � � excluding ��h� ��maller, ��rivately ow� ned ���mples, ��her� ��r� � saved ��h� �b��� ���or��� �for �me. four���� ������of � �����wor � sh�� ��� ��h� d� istr�� of� V� aranasi, � According ��o ��h� ��riest, ��round �200 �year� ��go, �� ��o�� � including � �hr�� � Śvetāmbar� � ��mples, � o�� � ��hānakavasī � merchant found a statue of a tīrthaṅkara ��� �� �field ��� ��h� � sthānak, ���d �o�� �Terāpanth �bhavan. �Digambar� ���m���� � Kaushamb� �district, ��bou� ���v�� �m���� �from �. � dom����� ��h� ������ �of ����� �worship. � Wh�� �h� ��m� ��ro�� ��h� ��mage, �h� ��oticed ��h�� ��h� �f�� � Bhelapur, ��h� ��upposed �birth���� �of �Pārśvanātha, ��� � of � �h� � ����u� � w�� � glowing, � ��d � hanging � ���o � differ��� � certainly � �h� � ���r� � of � ���� � worsh�� � �� � Var����� � �oday, � colors. K� nowing �� ���m��� h� ad ��o b� � d� edicated ��o ��h�� m� i- housing ��wo ���w, ��mpressiv� ���m���� �(and �o�� ��maller, � raculou� figur� e, h� � bough� � ��h� �urr��� ���m��� �ompound, � privately �owned �Digambar� ���mple). �Th� �recently �on- th�� �� ����onm��� ��r�� �of ��h� �British �government, ���d � structed �Digambar� �(founded ��� �1990) ���d �Śvetāmbar� � had � �h� � �mag� � ��������d � �� �h� � ��mple, � dedicating � �� �o � (consecrated ��� �2000) ���m���� ��� �Bhelapur, �maintained � Śreyāṃsanātha. by ��h� D� igambar� ������ ���māj ���d ��h� Śv� etāmbar� ������ � Th� � �mag� � found � �� �h� � field � had � �h� � �ymbo� � of � � Tīrth� ��ociety, �respectively, ��r� ��h� ���w��� ��� �� ��ong �his- moon, �Candraprabha’� ��ymbo� �(lāñcana), �bu� �wh�� ���- tory �of ���m���� ��rected ��� ��h�� �����. A� �Digambar� ���m��� � stalled � �� �h� � urr��� � ��mple, � � rhino, � Śreyāṃsanātha’� � �� �Bhelapur ��� �mentioned ��� ������rabh� ���ri’� �14th ���- cognizance, �w�� ��rved �over ��h� �depictio� �of ��h� �moon. � tury Kalpapradīpa, ���d �other �����rary ��vid��� ����o ��ug- Indeed, ��f �o�� ��xam���� ��h� ��mag� ��refully, �o�� ��� ���� � g���� � �h�� � m�� ���� � dedicated � �o � Pārśvanāth� � �xisted � o� � both of the symbols on the base of the mūrti today. Thu� s, � th�� ����� ��� ���rly ��� ��h� �11th ����ury �(Gir� �1990: �99). � th� ��r���� ��xplained, ��h� ��mag� �“h�� ��h� ��ower �of �both � Wh��� Bh� elapur ho� ��� ��h� ���rg��� ��umber of� wor� shiper� � symbols.” ���ver�� m� ember� of� ��h� D� igambar� �ommuni- and bo� ���� ��h� r� ich��� h� istory, ��h� mo� �� �����resting ���m���� � ty ���V � aranasi, ��� �����r��� �meetings, �onfirmed ��h�� ���ory � �� �Var����� �for �m� �wer� ��h� �Digambar� �Śreyāṃsanāth� � and d� escribed ��o m� � how� ��h� ��mag� �ontinu�� ��o ���rform � tem��� ��� ���rnath ���d ��h� C� intāmaṇ� Pārśv� anāth� ���m��� � miracles, �hanging f� ���� ��xpressio�� ��hroughou� ��h� d� ay. �

52 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

A� 8:30� A.M.,� for� ��xample, Śr� eyāṃsanāth� ���ughs, ���d ��� � th� ��fternoon, ��h� �����u� ��miles. � After �only �reading ���xtbook �definitio�� �of ����� �wor- ship, �which ��x����� �how ��he tīrthaṅkaras, ���berated ���d � thu� � wholly � ����r��� � from � �h�� � world, � �r� �o � � � �� � ��y � way ��r����� ��� ��heir ��mages, �I �w�� ���������y ��urprised ��o � hear � �h�� � ����� � believ� � �h��� � mūrtis possess supernatu- r�� ��bilities. �Th��� ����m� ��bou� ��h� �uniqu� �“power” �of � each lāñcana and the image’s ability to perform mira- ��� ����rkly �ontrasted �with ��h� ��deologues’ �����rtio�� �I � had read that images of tīrthaṅkaras are installed solely to ������re, ��o� ��o �����r�� �with ��h� �mater��� �world. �A� �I � ����� �mor� ���m� �with ����� �devotees, �however, �I �w�� ��b�� �

to complicate my conceptions of the tradition by learn- Ellen Gough ing �how ������ ��hemselves, ��o� ���mply ��h� ���xtbooks, �un- derstand ��heir ��radition. �I ��m ��hankfully �ontinuing ��h�� � pro��� ��� ��OAS, �wher� �I ��m �fortu���� ��o �hav� ���ver�� � ����� ��� �fellow �����mates. � Interior �of �� �Digambar� ���m��� ��� �Bhelapur My ���ond f� avor��� ���m��� ���V � aranasi, ��h� Śv� etāmbar� � Cintāmaṇ� �Pārśvanāth� ���mple, �w�� �founded �200 �year� � temple, �� ��mall, �white, �one-foot-���� ��mag� �of �Padmāvatī � ago �by ��h� �king �of �Varanasi, �Kash� �Naresh, ��� �order ��o � ���� � o� � �h� � �upposed � ���� � of � Pārśva’� � ��ounter � with � bring h� �� w� if� f� ertility. ��ur� ���ough, ��fter ��h� ���m��� w� �� � Katha. �Digambar�� �of �our�� �o����� ��h� ��ocatio� �of ��h�� � constructed, h� �� w� if� bor� � �� ��on. Th� � ���m��� ����o h� �� gr� ��� � miracle, � ��d � � � ��rg� � �������g � �� �h� � Digambar� � ��m��� � mytholog��� ��mportance, b� eing ��ocated o� � ��h� ��urported � �� ���rnath �d����� ��h� ��v��� �occurring �� �few �kilometr�� � very � o�� � � wher� � Pārśva, � �� � young � �rince, � onverted � away � �� � Dasāśvamedh� � Ghāṭ. � Wher� � �h� � mir��� � oc- two � ���k�� � ���o � �h� � god � Dharaṇendr� � ��d � �h� � godd��� � curred, �or ��f ��� ��v�� �occurred, �however, �did ��o� �oncer� � Padmāvatī. � O�� � versio� � of � �h�� � well-know� � ��ory � de- me; I� w� �� mor� � �����rested ���g � aining ��w � ell-rounded (� and � scrib�� how� o� �� d� ay dur� ing Pārśv� a’� �hildhood, wh� �� ��h� � �� ���m�� �onflicting) ��ortr��� �of ���ved �������m �by ��xplor- young ��r��� �w�� ����ying �rowdily �with �h�� �friend� ���ong � ing ��h� ��onograph��� �of ��h� �varied ���m��� ��mages, ��h� � th� �river, �h� �r�� ����o ��� ������ ���med �Kath� �������g �o� � stor��� ��urrounding ��h� ���mples, ���d ��h� ������onate, �di- � �fire, ���rforming ��uster����� �(tapas). �Th� �young ��r��� � ver�� �vo��� �of ��h� ����� �ommunity ��� �Varanasi. �For �me, � w�� �distraugh� ��o ���� ��h�� �Kath� �had, �with ��h� �fir� �for �h�� � �� � w�� �h � � � b��� � �ossib�� � ���roductio� � �o � ������m, � d�� � I � tapas, � unknowingly � killed � �wo � ���kes. � Though � young, � ho�� ��o �build �upo� ��� �wh��� �I ��m ��� ��OA� �by �����racting � Pārśv� ���ood �u� ��o ��h� ���ge, �������g �him ��o ��bando� ��h�� � with ��h� ����� �ommunity �of �London. � worth���� ����f-tortur� ��h�� �harm� ���ving �beings. �Withou� � I ��hankfully h� av� ���ready m� �� w� ith o� �� m� ember of� ��h�� � , Pārśv� � ��xplained, ���y ��umber of� ��uster����� � community, �Mr. �A���� ��hah �who, ���ong �with �other �un- w��� ��o� �bring �����ghtenm��� ���d ���beration. �Th� �futur� � named �donors, �h�� �generously ���onsored ��h� ����� ����r�� � tīrthaṅkara then chanted a mantra and transformed the MA �fellowsh�� ��h�� �mad� ��� ��ossib�� �for �m� ��o ���udy ��� � snak�� ����o ��h� ����k� �god �Dharaṇendr� ���d �h�� �onsor� � London. �My �meeting �with �him �w��� �hopefully �b� �o�� �of � Padmāvatī, �who �wer� ��o �����r ����y �� ���gnifi��� �ro�� ��� � th� �fir�� �of �my �many ���ounter� �with ��h� ������ �of �Lon- Pārśva’� � ������m��� � of � ����ghtenm��� � (kevalajñāna), � don. � wh�� � Dharaṇendr� �m � erged � from � �h� � underworld � �o � shield ��h� �mend���� �with �h�� �hood, ����owing �Pārśv� ��o � Ellen Gough is an MA student at SOAS, Department for med����� ��� ����� ���d �becom� �omniscient. � the Study of Religions. She is holder of the 2007 Jain Today, ��� ��h� �basem��� �of ��h� �Cintāmaṇ� �Pārśvanāth�� � Spirit MA Fellowship in Jaina Studies at SOAS.

References

Giri, �Kamla, �Marutinand�� T� iwar� ���d V� ijay �Prakash � Singh, Kāśī� ke Mandir aur Mūrtiyāṃ. Varanasi: ����ā � Saṃskritik ���miti, �1997.

Sharma, ��.C. �“����� �Contributio�� ��� �Early ��ulp tur�� Ar� � ���d V� aranasi.” Jaina� Contributions to Vara- nasi. �Ed. ��.C. ��harm� ���d �Pr����� �Ghosa. V� aranasi: �

Ellen Gough Jñāna-Pravah� �Centr� �for �Cultur�� ���udies, �2000.

Śreyāṃsanāth� ���m��� ��� ���rnath

53 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

Undergraduate Essay Prize PhD/MPhil in Jainism in Jain Studies SOAS offers two kinds of Research Degrees in the Study of Jainism. A ��riz� �of �£500 ��� �offered �for ��h� �b��� �UG �����y �o� � any ��ubj�� r� elated ��o ������ ���ud��� by� ��OA� ���udents. � PhD. �Th�� ���volv�� ��� ������ ��hr�� �year� �of �full-tim� ���udy, � Th� ��riz� ��� ���onsored by� ��h� N.� K.� ����h�� Fou� ndatio� � leading ��o �� ��h���� �of �100,000 �word� ���d ��� �or�� ��xamina- through ��h� �Institu�� �of �����ology. � tion. Th� � ��h���� mu� �� b� � ���or � ig���� �����of � work� ���d m� ak� � � �d������ �ontributio� ��o �knowledg� �of ��h� ��ubject.

Applicatio�� � by � �����r, � �ompanied � by � � �hor� � CV � MPhil. Th� �� �������� ��� ������wo �� y� ears' fu� ll-tim� ���udy, ����d- and ��h� �����y, ��hould �b� ��ubmitted �by ��-m��� ��o ��h� � ing ��o �� ��h���� of� 60,000� word� � ���d ��v � iva. I� � ��hould b� � ����her � Centre of Jaina Studies at the Department of the Study � r� ecord of� or� ig���� r� esearch work� or� �� �r����� d� iscussio� of� � of �����gio�� ��� ��OAS, �University �of �London. existing �knowledge.

[email protected] Why choose SOAS?

Th� w� inner of� ��h� 2006/07� U� ndergradu��� E� ssay Pr� iz� � The Centre of Jaina Studies �� ����� ���ud��� w� �� A� ���� ��owling: 'I� � ��h� ��hilosophy � Th� u� niqu� ����v����� of� ��h� C� entr� of� ������ ���ud��� ��rovid� � of ��on-absolutism �only ���rtly �or ��bsolutely ��rue?' �� ��d��� �research ���vironm��� �for ������ ���ud��� ���d �� �vi- br��� �forum �for �debate. http://www.soas.ac.uk/jainastudies The SOAS Library SOAS has one of the best libraries for Asian and African Studies, �with ����rly �� �millio� �volumes. ���ud���� �hav� ��- ��� ��o o� ther wor� ld-���� ���brar��� ���w � alking d� istance, ��uch � �� ��h� Br� itish L� ibrary, wh� ich ho� ��� o� �� of� ��h� b� igg��� �ollec- tio�� �of ����� ���x�� ��� ��h� �world.

Dissertation Prize in Languages and Cultures Jain Studies SOA� h� �� ��u � niquely �osmopo����� �haracter. C� entr�� ��o ��h� � School'� ��dentity ��� ��h� ���udy of� A� ���� ���d Afr� ��� ����guag- �� ���d ��h� �relationsh�� �betw��� ����guage, �ulture, �religio� � A ��riz� �of �£500 ��� �offered �for ��h� �b��� �PG �disserta- and ��ociety. � tio� o� � ���y ��ubj�� r� elated ��o ������ ���ud��� by� ��OA� � students. Th� � ��riz� ��� ���onsored by� ��h� N.� K.� ����h�� � Funding Foundatio� ��hrough ��h� �Institu�� �of �����ology. � Th� �f��� �of ��OA� ��r� �very �ompetitiv� �ompared ��o �other � Ivy �Leagu� �universities. �Th� ��hoo� �offer� ����� ������rch � Applicatio�� �by ������r, ��ompanied �by �� ��hor� �CV � Stud��� � Fellowsh��� � ��h � year. �Award� � �r� � ���o �v � ailab�� � and ��h� �dissertation, ��hould �b� ��ubmitted �by ��-m��� � from funding bodies such as and Humanities Re- search �Cou��� ��� ��h� �UK. � to the Centre of Jaina Studies at the Department of th� ���udy of� �����gio�� ��� OA�� S, U� niversity of� Lo� n- For further details please contact: don. Centre of Jaina Studies [email protected] [email protected] http://www.soas.ac.uk/jainastudies Hugh ���Auby � � w� �� ��warded ��h� 2006/07� D� isserta- tio� Pr� iz� for� h� �� I� SP o� � '� : ���� �����w � ith- SOAS Registry �� ��h� ����� �religiou� ��raditio� ���d ��h� �ontex� �of ���� � [email protected] 020 7898 4321 statu� ��� �voluntary �death �or ��uicide.' Download ��h� �Prospectus http://www.soas.ac.uk/researchfiles/researchdegrees.pdf

JAIN SPIRIT MA SCHOLARSHIP This award is sponsored by a group of anonymous benefactors for the dissemination of the spirit of Jainism. The total value of this scholarship is £5000, and it is awarded to students registered at SOAS for an MA degree with a major in Jaina Studies. Applications by letter, accompanied by a short CV, should be submitted by e-mail to the Centre of Jaina Studies at the Department of the Study of Religions at SOAS, University of London. Inquiries: [email protected]

54 CoJS Newsletter • March 2008 • Issue 3

55 Centre of Jaina Studies School of Oriental and African Studies Thornhaugh Street, Russell Square London WC1 0XG email: [email protected]

Centre Chair Dr Peter Flügel

Newsletter Editors Dr Peter Flügel and Janet Leigh Foster

Design Janet Leigh Foster

Printed by The Print Room (SOAS)

For information on the Centre please consult the Centre website: http://www.soas.ac.uk/jainastudies

HOW TO FIND US

SOAS • Russell Square • London WC1H 0XG • Email: [email protected]