Absent Lord: Eating

Ascetics are completely dependent on the laity for the most basic necessities of life, including nourishment. The transaction in which ascetics are fed is probably the most important lay-ascetic interaction. Eating itself is highly problematical to Jains. All eating is dangerous; it is at the root of the fatal attachment of the soul to the body and it is also a form of sense enjoyment (see Dundas 1985 on food and the Tirthankars). Moreover, producing and preparing food inevitably result in the sin of violence. For these reasons, fasting is central to the religious praxis of both ascetics and lay Jains (especially women). Nonetheless, ascetics must consume food in order to live. They are forbidden to prepare food (and indeed cannot even ignite the fire to cook it), and therefore ascetics must go on daily (or more) rounds to seek nourishment from lay households. The food they are given must of course conform to the strictures of nonviolence that apply to the diet of ascetics. Obviously there can be no tubers or the like, even if members of the family do consume such items on other occasions, and the food must be prepared under conditions of scrupulous cleanliness. The ideal is that food be taken only from lay households and persons of the highest piety and orthopraxy. There is, however, some latitude in these matters, for I myself was once honored with the privilege of donating a small amount of food to a Terapanthi monk.

Fundamental to this transaction is the idea that the food taken by an ascetic can never be prepared on his or her behalf.^[1] This has the effect of insulating the ascetic from the violence that went into the food's production and preparation; these things were not done at his or her instigation. The sin is that of the preparer of the food, but presumably it is offset by the merit (punya) generated by feeding the ascetic. As Laidlaw stresses, the issue is probably not so much that of the ascetic being contaminated by the sin of food preparation, but that he or she should not be the cause of the householder's sin, which would be in complete contradiction to the ascetic's role of teacher and exemplar (1995: Ch. 14). The ideal of ascetic subsistence is that the ascetic wanders totally at random from household to household, taking just a little bit of sustenance from those households worthy to give. The food-seeking rounds are likened to a cow's grazing; the idea is that the ascetic should take a little here, a little there. As a nun once put it to me, it is the opposite of the grazing of a donkey, "who gobbles up everything in one place." In theory, at least, the food is then consumed without enjoyment and in the spirit of complete detachment.^[2] Some ascetics simply mix all of their food with water into a uniform gruel and gulp it down.

Food-seeking by ascetics is neither called nor considered a form of "begging."^[3] The usual term, in fact, is gocari, a term meaning roughly "a cow's grazing." The ascetic himself has something of great value to offer the householder whose dwelling he approaches, namely, the opportunity to gain merit and/or spiritual advancement by feeding ascetics. "I say to myself," as an Ahmedabad informant put it, "I'm really lucky that a sadhu has come to my house." The gift of food to an ascetic belongs in the general South Asian category of merit-generating gifts called dan, and in Jainism a gift to an ascetic is among the most efficacious forms of dan.^[4] The giver therefore wants to give, but at least in theory the ascetic receiver is disinclined to take because taking compromises his or her asceticism.^[5] Indeed, because the asceticism of the ascetic receiver is vital for the efficacy of the gift, the odd circumstance arises that the giver wishes most to give to the ascetic least likely to take. As we shall see, this fact has much to do with the inner logic of Jain worship.

The ascetic on food-seeking rounds says to the householder, "dharm labh!" Whether uttered as an invitation to be given food or as a final blessing, it expresses the idea that the "profit" or "benefit" (labh) of "religion" (dharm) will accrue to the giver. The reference is clearly in part to the "merit" (punya) and its fruits that will result from gifting food to an ascetic. As Laidlaw has shown, however, the acceptance of one's gifts by ascetics can signify more than mere merit; it can also be seen as emblematic of the spiritual progress of the donor. "For a renouncer to accept food from a household," Laidlaw points out, "is to recognize that it follows a comprehensive regime, at least with regard to food, which is comparable to that of the renouncers themselves" (1995: 322). Thus, the expression dharm labh allows two potential meanings: good fortune in both the worldly and spiritual senses (ibid.: 322-23, 325; also Cort 1989: 457). We have not seen the last of this type of ambiguous doubleness.

As with all religious acts, the crux of the matter is the spirit (bhav) in which it is done. As an Ahmedabad informant once put it to me, a person might well go to the upasray in the morning and say to an ascetic, "labh dijiye "("Please give me the benefit/profit of religion," meaning "Please come to my house for food today."). Such a layperson might feel that because it is the first of the month he will get good business if the monk or nun accepts. But only if there is a real feeling of "I should give" will merit result. And - my friend went on to say - if gifting to an ascetic is done truly in the right spirit, it will even result in the removal of karma (nirjara).

Consistent with the Jain view of the moral suspectness of eating, death by self-starvation is one of the highest spiritual ideals among the Jains. Among Digambars, with whom the practice is known as sallekhana such a death is apparently expected of ascetics (Carrithers 1989: 224). Among Svetambars the practice is called santhara and seems to be less common than among Digambars (Cort 1991b: 152-53). In Jaipur, however, I heard of instances of laypersons who made deathbed vows of santhara. During the year of my research in Jaipur a very distinguished Sthanakvasi acarya named Hastimalji Maharaj (author of a history of Jainism cited in this book) took santhara This occurred in April 1991 and was regarded as an event of sufficient importance to be widely reported in the Rajasthan press.