Jain Legend : Jain Dharma ka Maulika Itihasa (2): Foreword

A thousand years of Jain history

Jain Dharma kā Maulika Itihāsa - Volume I, is presented to those who are fond of history. Volume I detail the history right from the first Tīrthaṃkara Vṛṣabha Deva up to the latest Tīrthaṃkara Mahāvīra.

We felt very happy that certain great scholars have read even the minutest details from a research point of view and have sent their doubts and valuable suggestions. Such an interest is really commendable.

Out of the exhaustive material published in the First Volume, enthusiasts have expressed doubts on only five topics, which are listed and answered here under:

Doubt 1:

While discussing about the first Pāraṇā (breaking fast) of Lord Vṛṣabha Deva  in Volume I, Lord Vṛṣabha Deva performed the breaking of the yearlong fast (Pāraṇā  of Varṣa Tapa) on Vaisākha Śukla Tṛtyā is mentioned. Here the question arises that Lord Vṛṣabha Deva  undertook only for two days fast (Belā tapa) along with initiation (Dīkṣā) on Caitra Kṛṣṇa Aṣṭamī and only on Vaisākha Śukla Tṛtyā of the second year, he performed first fast breaking (Pāraṇā) at the place of Śreyāṃsa Kumāra. Then, from Caitra Kṛṣṇa 8 to Vaisākha Śukla 3 of the following year, the penance was carried out for 13 months, 10 days. In that case, according to the legend "saṃvacchareṇa bhikkhā laddhā usaheṇa loganāheṇa" ācāryas have described the first tapa of Lord Ādinātha as yearlong fast "Saṃvatsara tapa". As the fasting  was carried out for 13 months 10 days - and not for just 12 months, is it right to call it "Saṃvatsara Tapa"?

Clarification:

As a matter of fact, this question is not new. This is a much debated question. "saṃvacchareṇa bhikkhā laddhā usaheṇa loganāheṇa" - this should only be considered as a common utterance. In a broad sense, since the additional number of days which extends to over a year is not sizeable, it would have been mentioned as Samvatsara tapa, not taking into account those additional days. The duration of first Tapa of Lord is little over a year. Such a clarification is evident in "Harivaṃśa Purāṇa".

From these references, it is apparent that Lord Vṛṣabha Deva had performed his first tapa for more than a year, however, practically, the additional days are considered secondary and referred to as Varṣa tapa only.

Doubt 2:

The second doubt relates to the wedding and renunciation of Brāhmī and Sundarī. Based on traditional values, it has been considered that both these sisters remained as celibate throughout their lives. According to the scriptures in Digambara tradition, it has been clearly mentioned that both of them were unmarried. However, books of Śvetāmbara tradition had given three different versions: 1. In Kalpasūtra, there is mention of not Sundari alone, but of both Brāhmī and Sundarī as the Chief female-monks (Sādhvīs) of three lakh female-monks (Śramaṇīs). Pramukhā Subhadrā of śrāvikā (female-votary) group also is mentioned here. From these references from Kalpasūtra, it is evident that both the sisters have taken the dīkṣā together. 2. According to Āvaśyaka Malaya and "Triṣaṣṭi-śalākā-puruṣa-caritra", et al. it is evident that Brāhmī renounced at the time when Lord Vṛṣabha Deva had established the religious order (Dharma Tīrtha). Sundarī also wanted to renounce at the same time, but Bharata had stopped her, saying that, once he becomes the Cakravartī Emperor, he would make her, his wife (Strī Ratna). Bharata became the śrāvaka and Sundarī śrāvikā. 3. The third version is that prior to his taking initiation of monkhood (Śramaṇa Dharma Dīkṣā), Lord Vṛṣabha Deva had performed the nuptials of Bharata's sister Brāhmī with Bāhubali and Bāhubalī's sister Sundari with Bharata. On attaining Kaivalya (omniscience), when Lord Ādinātha established the Dharma Tīrtha, with the permission of Bahubalī, Brāhmī renounced and joined female-monkhood (Śramaṇī Dharma). At the same time, Sundarī wanted to renounce, but Bharata restrained her saying that she would become the chief queen, when he becomes the Cakravartī Emperor.

Clarification:

The author of Harivaṃśa Pūrāṇa wrote that these two were calibate since birth and they remained unmarried. Similarly, author of Ādi Pūrāṇa also referred Brāhmī as a princess and it was also mentioned that both the sisters were unmarried. From this, it is obvious that both the sisters were celibates.

In fact, the third version of Śvetāmbara tradition arose out of the misunderstood word "Dattā". Thus the misconception had been prevalent. It was not supported by any substantial evidence. After reviewing all Jain literature on this subject, it is evident that, none of the classics mentioned the marriage of Brāhmī or Sundarī. Here in this context, the difference between the marriage and engagement should be well understood.

While explaining the origin of the traditions of marriage and engagement, ācārya Malayagiri commenting on 'Āvaśyaka Niryukti', wrote in his "Āvaśyaka Malaya Vṛtti":

"Vṛṣabha Deva's marriage was performed; seeing this other people had started performing the marriages of their children. There is no further mention of marriage, after this reference. Then he proceeds elucidating the meaning of 'Datti' i.e., Vāgdāna (engagement). To put an end to the Yugala Dharma (marriage between twin brother and sister), the Lord had performed the nuptials of Bharata's sister Brāhmī with Bāhubalī and Bāhubalī's sister Sundarī with Bharata."

Niryuktikāra and Vṛttikāra had expressed different opinions about the origin of the ceremonies of marriage and engagement, basing on which it is indisputably evident that Lord had performed only the engagement of his daughters - Brāhmī and Sundarī- and not marriage.

Doubt 3:

The third doubt has been expressed on the heavenly abode or salvation of the fourth Cakravartī Emperor. Sanata Kumāra. As per the philosophical tradition, Sanata Kumāra Cakravartī is supposed to have attained salvation. In Part 1 of this book, it is stated that Cakravartī Sanata Kumāra reached the 3rd heaven, also called Sanata heaven.

Clarification:

The basis of what is mentioned in Part 1 of this book is Abhayadeva's commentary on Sthānāṃga Sūtra and ācārya Hemacandra's 'Triṣaṣṭi-śalākā-puruṣa-caritra". Out of the four types of rituals leading to death (Anta Kriyās)  described in detail in Sthānāṃga Sūtra, the summary of the third type is as follows:

The third type is 'mahākarma pratyaya antaḥkriyā' in which one performs continuous long lasting austerities, endures severe afflictions due to prolonged disease and ultimately gets liberation like Sanata Kumāra Cakravartī. Examples of Antah Kriyās were cited from the point of view of present life (Tadabhava).Hence, it is appropriate to consider that Sanata Kumāra attained liberation (Siddha) in the same birth (bhava), because the third Antah Kriyā and the Monk hood were attributed to him, and not to the one who was described by Ācārya Abhayadeva and Hemacandrācārya, who after spending valuable time in Heavenly abode (Devaloka), came to Mahāvideha Kṣetra and achieved salvation from monkhood there.

Keeping in view the words used in the original text on this subject in Sthānāṃga-Sūtra and analysing the pros and cons, it would be apt to regard that Sanata Kumāra Cakravartī had attained Mokṣa (salvation) in that life itself. According to the Digambara tradition also, the fourth Cakravartṃ Sanata Kumāra is considered to have attained Mokṣa in this birth only.

Doubt 4:

The fourth doubt is about the acquisition of Strī-Nāma Karma by monk Mahābala. In Volume 1, in the chapter of Lord Mallinātha, while introducing the pūrvabhava, it was written in page 126 as follows: "By performing such deceitful austerities, he acquired the Karma bondage that would result in being born as a woman (Strī-veda). Further due to his severe austerities on twenty reflections, he earned the Tīrthaṃkara-Nāma- Karma.

Here the doubt arises whether the jīva of Lord Mallinātha in his third birth (in the birth as Mahābala), acquired Strī Nāma Karma after acquiring Tīrthaṃkara Nāma Karma or prior to it.

Clarification:

If one properly analyses the original part related to it in Jṅāta Dharma Kathāṃga, this doubt will be easily clarified as it is self-explanatory. In the original it is clearly written that King Mahābala along with his six childhood friends took initiation in Śramaṇa Dharma, studied eleven limbs scriptures (Ekādaśāṃgī) and travelled around, performing various tapas and sanctifying the soul. One day the seven saints had interacted among themselves and took a pledge that they would all perform similar type of tapas, together. As per their vow, they used to perform similar tapas like fasting (Upavāsa) etc. But before he became monk (Anagāra), Mahābala was a leader (Adhināyaka) while his six friends were followers (Adhinasta). Hence, Mahābala had a strong desire to be above the ordinary, to have a distinctive personality much above his friends. To fulfill this inner desire, Mahābala, against the vow they all took, had deceitfully performed special tapa, different (superior) from his other six monk-friends. As a result, his spiritual awakening (Samyakatva) became impure. Māyā (deceit) is the mother of Strī Nāma Karma; hence Mahābala acquired Strī-Nāma Karma (Strī-Veda). In the first half of the fifth Sūtra of Jṅātādharma Kathāṃga, it is illustrated that Mahābala attained Strī Nāma Karma, where as in the second part, it is clearly stated that he attained Tīrthaṃkara Nāma Karma by incessant practice of twenty reflections. From this it is evident that after taking the vow of self-restraint (Saṃyama), in the initial phase of the practice of spiritual-exertion (sādhanā), he first acquired Strī Nāma karma. Later on, while progressing further in the practice of spiritual purification, he had attained Tīrthaṃkara Nāma Karma by the incessant practice of the twenty causes / reflections.

This is well-founded fact because of the very reason that it was clearly written in the original scriptures which have been always considered as the most authentic ones. The second reason is that the spiritual-exertion, by which Mahābala attained Tīrthaṃkara Nāma Karma, was an exemplary one. It has been described that it is possible for a spiritual-practitioner (sādhaka) to attain Tīrthaṃkara Nāma Gotra Karma by incessant practice of just any one of the twenty causes mentioned in the scriptures. Inspite of his ardent practice of all the twenty reflections, to say that by the slight mistake his Samyaktva got polluted does not seem to be logical or correct. From these facts, it can be concluded that monk Mahābala had attained Strī Nāma Karma before attaining Tīrthaṃkara Nāma Karma.

Doubt 5:

In the fifth and the last doubt, it was mentioned that the Lord Ariṣṭanemi himself revealed during his religious congregation (Samavasaraṇa) actual identities of the six monks, who came in three pairs, to Devakī for alms. But according to the reference cited in the first part of "Caupanna Mahāpurisa Cariyaṃ", it is apparent that the six monks themselves revealed their identities to Devakī and this scriptural opinion was mentioned in a foot note. Does it not imply that the scriptural text was given secondary importance?

Clarification:

As a matter of fact, if one attentively goes through the title and description of the first part where it was discussed about Anīkasena etc., six monka, then such doubts would not have arisen.

The entire subject matter was described under the title "Disclosure of the secret by Lord Ariṣṭanemi". The very title itself reveals the scriptural opinion of the matter. Apart from this, complete evidence relating to this narration was presented with factual references from the scriptures. Also given is the descriptions made by the author of Triṣaṣṭi-śalākā-puruṣa-caritra. Before demonstrating any fact it is always a healthy tradition to present it from all the facets. Following the same healthy tradition, a reference of the author of "Caupanna Mahāpurisa Cariyaṃ" was cited in this context, which is a new phenomenon to majority of the learned. While presenting this side of the fact, it was categorically cautioned that the two instances where the versions were different, relevant notes were given to enlighten the scriptural opinions. The intellectual readers who had expressed their immense faith towards the scriptures and who showed an awareness to sustain the authenticity of scriptural doctrines deserve to be applauded.

Authentic historical basis

With a deep-felt desire to present an authentic Jain History from beginning to date, we have reviewed various canons, classics and other scriptures like Aṃga and Upāṃga, literatures, commentaries, later commentaries, critiques, interpretations, historical scriptures, repository of stories, chronological list of elder-monks (Sthavirāvalīs), pontifical chronology (Paṭṭāvalīs), Epics of Jain and Vedic traditions, various historical texts, scriptures on Buddhism, inscriptions, holy texts  as well as all available data. While writing this scripture, all along, I made it a point not to give importance to the fantasies and baseless tell-tale stories and to present only the proven historical facts found in the ancient scriptures and archives. Likewise, the events woven in a prodigious way do not find place in this book. The motive behind this clarification is that whatever is written in this book is authentic and is not without basis.

Main intention:  Search for true facts only

In the field of history, only those events and statements are considered authentic which can be validated to prove their authenticity. We have obtained few important facts, which would prove certain accreditations untenable and hence unacceptable. By publishing them as it is we have tried to bring out the truths into limelight to refute the inferences of some scholars. It does not mean to hurt the sensitive feelings of any one. Our prime object is to present the actual facts to the readers without any bias or prejudice.

Administration of the congregation (Saṃgha)

Any organisation-whether it is religious, political, social, financial or cultural does need a systematic method to run it effectively. Irrespective of the different types of approaches, the two that are regarded as vital to run the organisation are the autocratic and democratic approaches.

In autocratic approach one person is chosen as leader and is given complete authority. In democratic approach, there is no significant difference between the officers and the subordinates and between persons belonging to higher and lower stratum.

The critical analysis of the history of Dharma Congregation of Lord Mahāvīra starting from the time of establishing his creed till date reveals the fact that from the very beginning this organisation has been run strongly and beautifully by a method which is neither pure autocratic nor pure democratic. After attaining Kaivalya, during his time as omniscient Lord Mahāvīra felt that a mixed approach should be designed with a combination of all the good qualities of both the autocratic and democratic approaches to run his organisation.

Lord Mahāvīra formulated the mixed approach to help his Dharma congregation gain everlasting benefits and to last forever under the controlled leadership of an individual who is dedicated to the congregation and its traditions, who has a sharp-wit and administrative capabilities, who is energetic, intelligent, diplomatic and efficient. Under this approach, the arrangements were made in such a way that proper execution of them keeps Dharma congregation flawless and healthy traditions would continue.

In brief, it can be said that the approach was aimed at a controlled autocratic rule where there was neither a tinge of autocracy nor dictatorship. Though the approach gave allowance to the congregation to hold the reins under its control, the ideas and opinions put forward by members were given due respect. Decision was taken by the ācārya on any critical issue after long debates and group discussions by the members involved. His decision was final and binding to all.

After subjecting his many disciples to various tests, the ācārya would select his successor from among them, the one, who had all the virtues and whom he regarded as efficient. Then he would impart the knowledge he possessed, give training in all disciplines and make him worthy and capable enough to shoulder the responsibility of the congregation. Finally before completing his age, the ācārya would announce his successor to the congregation.

To run the organisation, Lord Mahāvīra designed a congregation - controlled autocratic procedural code. The ācārya is totally held responsible for the protection, progress and development and is empowered with power and authority subject to the control of the congregation. The basis of appointment of ācārya was not by election but by nomination. Only that monk could be nominated as ācārya, who had the following qualities:

1. He should be of perfect conduct and should also be able to encourage others to follow the path of perfect conduct.
2. He should be able to maintain total discipline in the congregation.
3. He should be capable of imparting the Knowledge of Canons and Canonical principles to the group of monks (male and female separately).
4. With the rare capability of pushing the group of spiritual practitioners of the creed (Sādhakas) to continuous spiritual development and progress.
5. He should be a born-intellect, versatile, energetic, assertive and impressive personality, well cultured, pious, abstemious, flawless, honest, and forth right and should belong to a noble family.

Even today, all the Śramaṇa congregations of Jainism follow the age-old controlled autocratic administrative set up to run their organisations.

Post Liberation (nirvāṇa) administrative features of the congregation

It is an undisputable historical fact that Lord Mahāvīra's Dharma congregation has always remained as the most prominent, vast and universally acclaimed one in comparison with other Dharma congregations.

Jain literature is abundant with the description of different congregations existing before and after the nirvāṇa of Mahāvīra, which were huge in size and well accepted by people. Unfortunately, today barring one or two, all the other congregations have only namesake existence, without even any remnants of the past. On the contrary, the congregation of Mahāvīra, which was vast and popular, enjoys the same status even after the nirvāṇa of Mahāvīra.

Jain Dharma had encountered much turmoil. Famines of 12-year durations, political upheavals, class rivalries, and conflicts sparked out of religious bigotry etc., occurred in cycles which in due course were cleared-off. The upheavals that rooted out many other Dharma congregations could not root out the Jain congregation. Even in the midst of such calamities and conflicts how was Jain Dharma able to withstand and survive successfully? In-depth probing unearths some strong rationale. The first and foremost reason is that the Dharma was propounded by the omniscient. Hence, the constitution of the congregation was, from all points of view, well organised and well maintained. Discipline, stability of the association, meticulous planning were the unique and stable features of these associations. The second reason for its stability is the great principle of universal brotherhood which was closely connected with the welfare of all living beings.  More than anything else, what protected this Dharma congregation from the worst calamities and troubles was the sacrifice, penance and infinite spiritual power of the Heads of the Dharma congregation - the great ācāryas.

Classification of ranks in the congregation

Ranks were created taking into consideration that the monks (male and female) should remain strong in their practice and be united and disciplined, they should be dedicated to the continuous acquisition of knowledge and practice of elevation, and be involved in the propagation, glorification and development of Dharma, they should lead an unblemished life with self-restraint and control, and the congregation should run naturally in an efficient manner. With these objects in view the classification of ranks is mentioned in Sthānāṃga Sūtra and Bṛhatkalpa Sūtra. The ranks were: 1 Preceptor (ācārya), 2 Holy-teacher (Upādhyāya), 3 Preacher-monk (Pravartaka), 4 Elder-monks or elders (Sthavira), 5 Scholar-monks (Gaṇi), 6 Chief disciple of Tīrthaṃkara (Gaṇadhara) and 7 Supporting-monks or junior monks (Gaṇāvacchedaka).

Just like the monks, even female-monks obeyed the orders of the ācārya. Ranks similar to monks were also created for female monks (e.g. Pravartinī Mahattarā, elder (Sthavirā) and Gaṇavachedikā) were created to facilitate the spiritual life of female-monks and to see that their daily routine is carried out smoothly, to curb any unnecessary interaction between male and female monks and to ensure that they are in a position to lead their ascetic life perfectly like that of the monks. The attributes physical, oratory and spiritual prosperity and the abilities of a person who holds the respective rank, their responsibilities, their sacred duties and the work to be carried out by them etc., as stated in the scriptures and ancient traditions, are discussed below:

Ācārya (Preceptor):  In the Dharma congregation of Lord Mahāvīra, the ācārya was considered as the most respected one and of the highest order. Proper administration, protection, growth, discipline, unity and multi-faceted development etc. of the congregation lies on the shoulders of ācārya. In the entire Dharma congregation his decision and direction is considered as final and binding and respected by everyone. This is the reason why as the correct interpreter and orator of Lord Mahāvīra's preaching, the ācārya is considered like the Tīrthaṃkara himself and is the eye of the entire congregation.

The origin of the word "ācārya" is discussed in many scriptures and Canons. The substance of all that is that the one who is served humbly and devotedly by disciples who after understanding fully the canonical knowledge propounded by Lord Jinendradeva, intensely desire to put it into practice for spiritual development, is called ācārya.

It is said, One who is aware of the Sūtra s and their meaning, and possesses highly appreciable attributes, who serves as the pillar of the congregation and who is capable of keeping even the shadows of sorrows and grieves away from the congregation, who can explain the āgamas and their in depth meaning to the disciples is called an ācārya.

The one who follows, propagates and preaches the five types of conduct, i.e. Jṅānācāra (Code of Knowledge), Darśanācāra (Code of Faith), Cāritrācāra (Code of Conduct), Tapācāra (Code of austerities) and Vīryācāra(Code of energy or vigour) and who is capable of making the monks adhere to these five ācāras is known as ācārya.

Scholarship is not the only criterion for conferring the designation of ācārya. His personality should constitute such a totality, that all the aspects of ascetic life should be impeccable. Daśāśrutaskaṃdha Sūtra elaborates the special attributes of ācārya. It had described the eight virtues (Sampadās) of ācārya, namely:

1. Ācāra Sampadā (five ācāras of jṅāna, darśana, cāritra, tapa and vīrya).
2. Śruta   Sampadā (possessing scriptural knowledge)
3. Śarīra Sampadā (able-bodied - a sound mind in a sound body).
4. Discourse Sampadā (appropriate speech in line with āgamaic views).
5. Discourse Sampadā (appropriate interpretation of the scriptures)
6. Mati Sampadā (intelligent and sharp-wit)
7. Prayoga Sampadā (ability to put the knowledge into practice)
8. Saṃgrah Sampadā (accumulation of knowledge)

UPĀDHYĀYA (Holy-teacher): Jain philosophy is based on the simultaneous mix of knowledge and conduct. The right conduct along with right knowledge leaves behind the unique fragrance of purity. Just as the right conduct pregnant with right knowledge is appreciable, similarly only that knowledge is meaningful and useful which results in right conduct.

In Jain congregation, the designation of Upādhyāya is next to ācārya in the hierarchical line. The main function of this rank is teaching. Upādhyāya teaches the scriptures to the monks (Śramaṇas).

Swādhyāya-Sūtra literature in the form of Dwādaśāṃgī, propounded by Lord Jina, had been narrated, described and compiled by scholars. The one who discourses these, is known as Upādhyāya (Upadeśa Śramaṇa). Sthānāṃga Vṛtti, describes Upādhyāya as Sūtradātā - the one who gives the teachings of Sūtras. It means that in order to maintain the clarity, purity, vividness stability and irrevocability of the original texts of the Sūtras, he imparts training, both from traditional and linguistic point of view to the Śramaṇas. This in turn greatly helps to keep the Āgamas intact.

To articulate the scriptures or rather to go through it syllable after syllable is not considered as reading at all. Anuyoga Dwāra describes sixteen types of adjectives - śikṣita, Jita, Sthita, Mita, Parijita, Nāmasama, Ghoṣasama, Ahīnākṣara, Atyakṣara, Atyāvidhyāsara, Askhalita, Amilita, Avyatyāmredita, Pratipūrṇa, Pratipūrṇa-Ghoṣa and Kaṇṭhośṭha vipramukta. Sūtra pāṭha had to be maintained undamaged and intact in its original, pure form. Hence, even after so long a time, such vast Āgama literature remains as it was in the yore, without any change.

The original text of Sūtras forms the basis for the meaning or interpretation of it. So, all precautions are taken to maintain the original in its pure form, by giving a lot of importance to, and stress on studying with perfect pronunciation; and hence the origin of the separate rank of 'Upādhyāya', who takes care of all these things.

Pravartaka (Preacher): To provide assistance to the ācārya in fulfilling his responsibilities, to contribute to the progress and development of Dharma congregation, to ensure that the Śramaṇas adhere to the rules of the conduct and to guide them in their dynamic progress, the Pravartaka rank was created together with other ranks.

Pravartaka is concerned about and takes care of the activities of Gaṇa or Śramaṇa congregation. If they notice that any Śramaṇa has fervour for penance etc., the Pravartaks encourage the Śramaṇas to enhance these qualities. It is the duty of the Pravartaka to encourage a Śramaṇa whom he thinks fit to attain perfection in a particular discipline. Similarly if he finds a Śramaṇa unfit in any discipline, he has to advise him to avoid it. The ascetics apparently need a guide. The Pravartaka always tries to cheer up and boost the morale of the Gaṇa.

STHAVIRA: The rank of Sthavira is very significant in Jain congregations. Ten types of Sthaviras were described in Sthānāṃga Sūtra, the last three being - Vaya Sthavira, Śruta Sthavira and Paryāya Sthavira. These three ranks are connected with the Śramaṇa life. In normal usage Sthavira means 'aged' or mature. The one who is older in age is Jāti Sthavira. Sthānāṃga Vṛtti determines his age as 60. The one who is well-versed in Śruta Samavayāṃga āgama and in scriptures is called as Śruta Sthavira. Age is not the criterion for them; they could even be young. And Paryāya Sthaviras are those, whose initiation span (span of the renuncer life) is long. Vṛttikāra says that their span of initiation is 20 years.

Sthavira Śramaṇas have their own greatness. They are staunch followers of Dharma, and are always alert and ready to spare their time and effort to help Śramaṇas stick to their path of Dharma, assisting them in their practice and strengthening their virtue of self-restraint. Usually Sthaviras aim at Saṃvigna liberation. They are soft-spoken and very tender at heart. If any monk either totally or partially neglects the rules and regulations that help to gain knowledge and build the conduct or fails to follow them regularly, immediately the sthavira reminds him of his duties, explains the importance of knowledge and conduct. To the monks, who are on the verge of fall, the sthavira explains the consequences of worldly / temporal and spiritual fall and not only brings him back onto the track but also stabilizes him on the Holy Path. This implies that Sthavira performs the great task of guarding the self-restrained life of Śramaṇas. He enjoys a prestigious position and goodwill in congregation. In brief, the Sthavira himself is unswerving and strong-natured in controlling the sensual inclinations. Besides he encourages the members to remain like that.

GAṆI (group leader or scholar par excellence): The ordinary meaning of Gaṇi is leader of a gaṇa (group of people) or a group of monks (male and female). That is why this word is used for ācārya also. But in this context, the word conveys a special meaning. One who is an unparalleled scholar, and who has the total scriptural knowledge was nominated as Gaṇi.

Even though the ācārya is supreme in congregation, it does not mean that he is the greatest scholar and the most erudite one, among the Śramaṇas of the congregation. Often these qualities are found in Gaṇis. So he can also address the ācāryas. If a ācārya is interested in learning the religious treatises, he is welcome to do the same from Gaṇis. This is an ideal example of how the knowledge and the knowledgeable are treated with respect.

GAṆADHARA: The literal meaning of the word is that the person who bears the responsibility of Gaṇa or Śramaṇa congregation, the leader, Lord or ācārya. According to Āvaśyaka Vṛtti, one who owns the doctrinal knowledge as conveyed by Tīrthaṃkara and composes the same as scriptures is a gaṇadhara.

Scriptural literature used this word mostly in two contexts. In the first, a Gaṇadhara is the chief disciple of the Tīrthaṃkara who compiles the doctrine preached by Tīrthaṃkara in the form of Dwādaśāṃga. He takes care of the different Gaṇis of their Dharma congregation. He gives discourses on scriptures to the Śramaṇas of his gaṇa. The Sūtras are their soul mates. In other words they are creators of Sūtras.

The word used in the second context is, (written in Sthānāṃga Vṛtti) as the one who alerts monks (Āryas) and Sādhvīs, that is to say, he always guides and inspires them in the path of asceticism and extends his cooperation in spiritual matters.

GAṆAVACHEDAKA: He is mostly associated with the administrative part, and helps to strengthen the congregation, extends support to it and provides a means to Śramaṇas to advance in their spiritual pursuit.  He mobilises the necessary things for the Śramaṇa-life by travelling around to different places and by always making similar efforts.

He gathers the things necessary for the maintenance of a Śramaṇa's life and makes relevant arrangements. If we assess his position from this point of view, no doubt his position is one of great importance. As he successfully fulfils the responsibility of collecting the necessary things, the work of ācārya to that extent gets much reduced as far as the administrative work of the congregation is concerned. As such, the ācārya finds ample time for the progression of both the religion as well as the congregation and for related works.

SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS: Some special qualifications were perceived as essential to nominate a monk to these positions. Under extraordinary circumstances, provisions are also made to take any exceptional decision. It is useful to quote some of the aspects from the Vyavahāra Sūtra and Bhāṣya.

ĀPAVADA (exceptions): A special point was mentioned in Vyavahāra Sūtra. Under exceptional circumstances a Śramaṇa who had undergone initiation for one day, can also be appointed as ācārya or upādhyāya. This was particularly mentioned considering the Nirudhavāsa Śramaṇas. The phrase "Nirudhavāsa Paryāya" is applicable to that Śramaṇa, who previously led the life of a Śramaṇa, but owing to his weaknesses diverted from the path. Though the person had lost control over senses, yet as he had spent a considerable amount of time as a saint and was genuinely inspired by the spiritual purification, if he once again becomes a Śramaṇa, then his past experiences as a Śramaṇa would prove beneficial for both himself and for the congregation.

Essence of the text

The present book deals with the history of Jain Dharma from V.N. 1 to 1000. It is written in such a manner that it leaves a deep impression in the hearts of the readers. Further the history stretched over a period of 1000 years after the nirvāṇa of Mahāvīra is classified into four ages so as to make it more interesting to all. They are: 1 Era of the omniscient (Kevalī era), 2 Era of the all canon knowing (Śrutakevalī era), 3 Having knowledge of ten prior canons (Daśa Pūrvadhara era) and 4 Era of having general knowledge of the prior canons (Sāmānya Pūrvadhara era).

1. Era of the omniscient (Kevalī Era): After the nirvāṇa of Mahāvīra both Śvetāmbara and Digambara sects had equally considered Indrabhūti Gautama, Ācārya Sudharmā and Ācārya Jambū as Kevalīs. However, there was difference of opinion between these sects regarding the time of these Kevalīs. The difference between individual and cumulative duration of the two sects of the three Kevalīs is as follows:

With the above table it becomes clear that according to the Śvetāmbara sect, a period of 64 years from V.N.1 to 64 is considered as Kevalī Period, whereas according to the scriptures (mentioned above) of Digambara tradition three different opinions are found. In spite of these different versions, the present Digambara tradition unanimously agrees that Kevalī period was extended up to 62 years.

In many authentic scriptures of Śvetāmbara tradition, substantial evidence has been brought to light proving that even during the existence of Indrabhūti Gautama, Ārya Sudharmā was considered as the first pontiff of Lord Mahāvīra. This topic is elaborately discussed in this text under the heading of Kevalī period. The gist is as follows:

1. During his own life time, omniscient Lord Mahāvīra appointed his eleven chief disciples as Gaṇadharas; He knew that Ārya Sudharmā had longevity of life; By saying "placing you in the rank of Pivot, I am giving orders of the Gaṇa" i.e. he, in a way, announced that Sudharmā would be his successor.
2. Sometime after the nirvāṇa of Mahāvīra, in the same night, Indrabhūti Gautama had attained omniscience. The person who had attained omniscience could not be nominated as a pontiff.

The reason being, any pontiff follows and propagates the commandments, preaching, ideals and the doctrines of his founder religious leader and encourages others to follow them. However, the self-realisation and self-perception of an omniscient is so comprehensive that he is totally aware of the entire world (with its beings and objects) and perceives them in front of his very eyes. So, instead of quoting, "I am saying what Lord has said" he is in a position to claim, "I am explaining whatever I have realised". In such a situation, while teaching and explaining the meaning of Dwādaśāṃgī, propounded by Tīrthaṃkara Mahāvīra to the group of ascetics, no omniscient can say that "Lord Mahāvīra has perceived like this, has realised like this and has said like this". As he knows and perceives by himself, he says, "I am seeing in such a way", "I know it this way" and "I am saying whatever I know and I perceive". As such, the tradition of Śruta-paramparā (the system of handing down the scriptural knowledge, unbroken and unimpaired from generation to generation) started by the latest Tīrthaṃkara will no more remain as 'Lord Mahāvīra's tradition', instead will be termed as Śruta paramparāof the Kevalī Gautama.

Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, to sustain and carry forward the preaching of Lord Mahāvīra up to the end of the fifth epoch / time period (Araka), and to follow his instructions which lead the practitioners onto the path of elevation, Omniscient Gautama was not considered as the first Successor, instead Caturdaśa pūrvadhara and manaḥparyavajṅāna Sudharmā was considered as the first pontiff.

In the chapter dealing with Ārya Sudharmā, under the sub-heading "The Author of the present Dwādaśāṃgī" the topics of Dwādaśāṃgī are narrated in an elaborate and descriptive manner. Discrepancy between Śvetāmbaras and Digambaras regarding the authorship of Dwādaśāṃgī is also discussed in this chapter to the possible extent.

The unanimous opinion expressed in all the authentic scriptures of the Śvetāmbara sect undisputedly states that after Lord Mahāvīra clarified their respective doubts, Indrabhūti Gautama together with ten other gaṇadharas, took 'initiation' of Śramaṇa Dharma from Him. The same day, after attaining the knowledge of trio of reality (Tripadī) from the omniscient Lord and upon being conferred the rank of gaṇadhara, on the basis of the preaching of the Lord, they at first compiled fourteen Pūrvas (Caturdaśa pūrvas) and later the remaining Dṛaṣṭivāda including Ekādaśāṃgī separately. Though the meaning of the Dwādaśāṃgī written independently by the eleven gaṇadharas (based on the preaching of the Lord Mahāvīra) is same, but the style is different.

Of the eleven gaṇadharas of Lord Mahāvīra, seven gaṇadharas had each one gana and thus seven Gaṇas; the eighth and ninth gaṇadharas together had one gaṇa; the tenth and eleven gaṇadharas together had one gaṇa. In this way, altogether, (7+1+1) there were nine gaṇas. Though gaṇadharas were 11, gaṇas were 9. As there are nine gaṇas so there are nine compositions of Dwādaśāṃgī. Except Indrabhūti Gautama and Sudharmā, the remaining nine gaṇadharas entrusted the responsibility of their gaṇas to Ārya Sudharmā during the lifetime of Lord Mahāvīra. They obtained liberation, observing the monthly practice of pious death (Pādopagamana Saṃthārā). Their seven gaṇas thus merged into Sudharmā's gaṇa.

Even Indrabhūti Gautama, 12 years after V.N., after entrusting his gaṇa to, Ārya Sudharmā, became Siddha, i.e. attained liberation.

Thus the disciples of ten gaṇadharas and their eight scriptural discourse (vācanās) compositions went into oblivion after the nirvāṇa of their respective gaṇadharas. As a result, the lineage of Sudharmā's disciples and his composition of Dwādaśāṃgī only survived.

Two different opinions are found in the scriptures of Digambara sect regarding the composition of Dwādaśāṃgī. In Sarvārtha Siddhi Vṛtti, which elaborates the Tattvārtha Sūtra, it is made clear that Dwādaśāṃgī was written by all the Gaṇadharas. The quote says, "Omniscient Tīrthaṃkara distrībuted his incomprehensible and unperceivable wealth of knowledge to his disciples through divine sound. With the newly gained knowledge through the preaching of Lord, and with the enlightened and enhanced intellects, the Śrutakevalī gaṇadharas, compiled scriptures which are called as Aṃga Pūrva Lakṣaṇa or Dwādaśāṃgī." According to the second opinion, Indrabhūti Gautama had written Dwādaśāṃgī in one muhurat on the very same day after listening to the meaningful discourses of Lord on Āgamas.

After analysing the facts of Śvetāmbara and Digambara sects, it can be concluded that Dwādaśāṃgī was the combined effort of all gaṇadharas, and was not composed exclusively by any one gaṇadhara; and in the period after the nirvāṇa, Caturdaśa Pūrvadhara ācāryas and also minimum Daśa Pūrvadhara ācāryas, from time to time, created needbased 12 limbed Āgamas which are all a collection from the pūrvaṃga of Dṛṣṭivāda.

Era of all canons knowing Monks (Śrutakevalī Era)

This period falls between V.N. 64 and 170. In this chapter the lives of five Caturdaśa Pūrvadhara (knower of the 14 prior canons) ācāryas who belonged to Śrutakevalī era are discussed. Though the number of ācāryas is same, their names are stated differently in the Śvetāmbara and Digambara sects. The important events during their life time are also discussed here.

This chapter is very significant in many aspects. Śrutakevalī Ācārya Bhadrabāhu went to heaven in V.N. 170 as per Śvetāmbara sect and in V.N. 162 as per Digambara sect. After V.N. 1000 there was another Bhadrabāhu with occult powers. Because of the similarity in name, probably the incidents from the life of that Occult Ācārya Bhadrabāhu got mixed up with the incidents from the life of Śrutakevalī Ācārya Bhadrabāhu. For this reason for a long time there have been several differences of opinion between the two sects. In this chapter, based on the ancient and not so ancient scriptures of both the sects, the differences of opinion between the two sects are resolved.

There is a heaven and earth difference of opinion as to how the Dharma congregation of Lord Mahāvīra was divided into two sects. According to Digambaras the division in the sect came into existence in V.N. 606 and according to Śvetāmbaras it was in 609.

The authors of Śvetāmbara Sect have expressed unanimous opinion about how and when the Digambara sect came into existence; at the same time, there is a disagreement among the Digambaras about how and when the Śvetāmbara Sect originated.

The enumeration of Devasena in his book "Bhāva Saṃgraha" about how Śvetāmbara sect came into existence, confirms the following:

1. An occult-powered ācārya named Bhadrabāhu stayed in Ujjain in Vikram 124 (594 V.N.).
2. He with his occult knowledge warned all the Śramaṇa congregations that severe famine would occur in the entire north including Avantī and would last for twelve years. So all the Śramaṇas should migrate from the north to more fertile areas.
3. All the ācāryas together with their respective congregations left north and migrated to some other places. A ācārya called Śānti reached Vallabhī Nagara in Saurastra. Severe famine broke out even there too. The dreadful and unavoidable circumstances that arose due to the famine compelled Ācārya Śānti and the Śramaṇas in his congregation to take stick, rug and bowl, to wear white clothes and adopt lenient ascetics prohibited for Śramaṇas.
4. Wherever rest of the Śramaṇa congregations went, natural resources existed in abundance. Hence they adhered to the sacred and hard rituals of Śramaṇa and did not allow any degeneration in their conduct.
5. When the situation restored back to normalcy, Ācārya Śānti rightly advised his disciples to abandon stick, clothes and bowl, etc., to undergo expiation and to follow the hard old conduct for them. A disciple called Jinacandra became furious at this bitter truth laced command of Ācārya Śānti. Ācārya Śānti breathed his last, when Jinacandra in anger, hit him hard on the head with a stick
6. After taking the life of Ācārya Śānti, Jinacandra declared himself "ācārya" of the congregation and created new Śāstras of his convenience to suit his conduct.
7. There is no mention of either Bhadrabāhu, the Śrutakevalī, who according to the belief of Digambara sect attained heaven in 162 V.N. or Viśākhācārya, Rāmilla, Sthūlavṛaddha, Sthūlācārya and even the great emperor Candragupta. This entire description was dated to the period between Vikram 124 & 136 era (594 & 604 V.N.) and it was attributed to occult Ācārya Bhadrabāhu.

Now, after a thorough research, many other scholars of Digambara sect have also made it apparent that it was the second Bhadrabāhu and not the first one, who went down South.

After a comprehensive study of the Indian, Greek & World histories, in the chapter of Śrutakevalī Ācārya Bhadrabāhu and Daśa Pūrvadhara Ācārya Sthūla Bhadra, this fact is proven beyond doubt that Alexander invaded India in 325 BC (200 V.N.). Porasa and Candragupta encouraged Alexander to attack the mighty Nanda Kingdom.

It is finally proved by unanimously approved historical fact that during the period between 327 & 324 BC (200 & 203 V.N.) when Candragupta served as a common patriotic soldier, the ninth Nanda was the most powerful king of Magadha. Cāṇakya destroyed the Nanda dynasty in 312 BC (215 V.N.) and crowned Candragupta Maurya as the King of Pātaliputra.

Śrutakevalī Bhadrabāhu (156 to 170 V.N.) and Candragupta Maurya (215 V.N.) were not contemporaries. In 215 V.N., Nanda dynasty was completely destroyed and Maurya dynasty was established.

Bhadrabāhu the Śrutakevalī (170 V.N.) was 830 years before Bhadrabāhu, the occult (after 1000 V.N.). Because of the similarity of their names, not only the works of the occult powered Ācārya Bhadrabāhu, like Niryuktis, Uvasaggahara Stotra, Bhadrabāhu Saṃhitā, etc., but also some events of his life were also accredited to the life of Bhadrabāhu, the Śrutakevalī.

Out of five ācāryas of Śrutakevalī era, except the name of Bhadrabāhu, the names of the other four ācāryas are stated differently in both the sects.

Starting from Tīrtha Pravartana era till the early period of Ārya Susthita and Supratibaddha ācārya era, the Dharma congregation of Lord Mahāvīra was popular as Nirgraṃtha congregation. From the ācārya era of Ārya Sudharmā to the ācārya era of Ārya Bhadrabāhu - the Śrutakevalī, there was no mention of any Gaṇa. But after the departure of Ācārya Bhadrabāhu to heaven Bhadrabāhu, Godāsa Gaṇa, named after his first disciple Godāsa, came into vogue. According to Kalapa sthavirālī, Godāsa Gaṇa had four divisions - Tāmalitiyā, Kodivarisiyā, Paṃduvaddhaṇiyā and Dāsī Khavvadiyā.

Godāsa, the chief disciple of Ācārya Bhadrabāhu went to South with his disciples, propagated and spread Jain Dharma.

1.Era of ten prior scriptures knowing monks (Daśa Pūrvadhara Era)

Daśa Pūrvadhara era extends from 170 to 584 V.N. (414 years). This chapter deals with the history of eleven Daśa Pūrvadhara ācāryas starting from Ārya Sthūlabhadra to Ārya Vajra, the epochal tradition that was started by Ārya Suhastī, Vācakavaṃśa tradition that came into existence under Ārya Balissaha. It also gives a brief gist of the list of ācāryas and the significant events that took place during their life time, the royal dynasties and invasions by foreigners etc., which occurred during these 414 years.

In this chapter a sincere effort is made to untie a difficult knot in the Jain-time-determination which, for the last one thousand years remained as a difficult problem for the intellectuals.

There has been unanimous belief in the Digambara sect that Bhadrabāhu, the Śrutakevalī passed away in 162 V.N. whereas according to Śvetāmbaras it was in 170 V.N.

This is a historical fact that Candragupta Maurya with the help of Cāṇakya overthrew the Nanda dynasty in 215 V.N., usurped the kingdom and crowned himself as the king of Magadha and founded the Maurya dynasty. If we consider that the Mauryan emperor Candragupta, was the laity or Śramaṇa disciple of Bhadrabāhu, then the time of demise of Śrutakevalī Bhadrabāhu should be pushed furtherby10 to 20 years after the year 215 V.N. or else the time of the downfall of Nanda dynasty, and, the establishment of the Mauryan Empire should be taken at least 15 to 16 years backward from V.N. 162 or 170.

An objective analysis of the factors brings out the cause of how and why there is the difference of 60 years while determining the time.

Ācārya Hemacandra clearly mentioned that Bhadrabāhu, the Śrutakevalī and Candragupta were contemporaries and that Bhadrabāhu passed away in 170 V.N. While stating that they both were contemporaries, he considered the time calculation of the ācārya - tenure but while considering the time calculation of the ruling kings, he completely forgot to take into account the 60 years of the reigning period of the ruler Pālaka. Thus, Candragupta who took over as Emperor in V.N. 215 was shown as having become the Emperor in V.N. 155 itself, 60 years earlier.

Thus when there are strong and substantial evidences to ascertain the historical fact, the tell-tale stories like making Candragupta the contemporary disciple (Monk or layman) of Śrutakevalī Bhadrabāhu, has no significance and are considered as baseless.

Era of Monks with general knowledge of prior scriptures (Ordinary Pūrvadhara Era)

According to the school of thought of Śvetāmbara tradition the period between V.N. 584 to 1000 is considered as an ordinary Pūrvadhara Era. This chapter brings into light the matters concerned with ten Vācanācāryas (discourse-ācāryas) from Ārya Revati Nakṣatra to Ārya Devārdhigaṇī Kṣamāśramaṇa; epochal-ācāryas from Ārya Rakṣita to Ārya Satyamitra and group-ācāryas like Ārya Ratha Candra, Samantabhadra, Vṛaddhadeva, Pradyotana, Mānadeva, etc. Besides, this chapter tries to elaborate the significant facts like classification of Anuyogas (classifications of canonical texts), Śālivāhana Śāka era, Jainism getting divided into sects, different congregations in Digambara Sect, Yāpanīya congregation, origin of gacchas, Caityavāsa (Temple dwelling), Āgama Vācanās like Skandilīyā and Nāgārjunīyā, compilation of Āgamas in the last Āgamavācanā conducted in 980 V.N. in Vallabhī Nagara, lineage of Gurus of Ārya Devārdhigaṇī Kṣamāśramaṇa, opinions of Digambaras about common Pūrvadhara era, comparison between Prajṅāpanā Sūtra and ṣaṭkhaṇḍāgama. It also throws light on few significant facts like the confusion prevalent in the Digambara Sect about the determination or compilation of time of Prākṛta Paṭṭāvalī of Nandi congregation, etc.

Epilogue

The history of Jainism from 1 V.N. to 1000 V.N. is provided in this text. The text deals with ācāryas, Āgamas, monks (male and female), gaṇas, gacchas, families, sects and sub sects, laymen and rulers who turned into laity (male and female), the important religious and historical events that took place during the time of these ācāryas. Besides the dynasties that ruled the country, their lineage, revolts and foreign invasions are also discussed, depending upon the requirement either briefly or elaborately. The objects behind the presentation of these facts are:

1. To make the religious history more authentic and comprehensive by presenting the then contemporary religious and political events together.
2. To eliminate the confusion and chaos created or being created by the vested interests of historians by scrutinising the historical events in the light of canonical texts of Jainism.
3. Try to untie the knots of the history of Jain religion which, for various reasons got entaṃgled, by conducting a comparative study of political history and canonical literature of Jainism.
4. To familiarise the readers with the good effects of the role of able and virtuous rulers who during their rule, contributed towards the all-round development of the religion and the prosperity of the common man.
5. To make known about the bad result of the all-round degeneration of the enslaved public and the religious decline during the regime of wicked rulers and foreign tyrants.
6. To establish and prove the fact from religious, social, financial and political perspective that only good rule or self-disciplined good rule is the main key for all round development and progress. On the contrary, bad rule leads to poverty-accusation and is the progenitor of utter fall and degeneration.
7. To make every Jain citizen understand the essential duties, by adhering to which, the foundation for the establishment of strong development oriented welfare state is laid, failing which there is the threat of wicked rule and the country may fall into deep pit of degeneration.
8. In Indian History some periods were declared as dark ages because no source is available about the historical events of that particular period. The effort is to connect these missing links of the Indian history by examining the then contemporary history from the canonical Jain literature and inscriptions etc., so as to come out with substantial proofs, thereby turning the dark ages into bright luminous ones.
9. In a freedom based good rule, under the cool shelter of righteous administration, the Kalpavṛkṣa (wish-fulfilling tree) of mundane and spiritual happiness and abundance sprouts, put forth foliage and bears flowers and fruits. In contrast under any tyrannical rule, the poisonous tree of disputes and differences takes root in the filthy mire. Living on such poisonous fruits, the man forgets his basic trait - namely humanity and behaves like a fiend. With a view that the readers should understand this fact, wherever necessary, together with the history of religion and religious leaders, the contemporary history is also described in this text. The mistakes of the past which proved to be detrimental to the mankind should, under no circumstances be repeated, by anyone in this spiritual country. This is our heartfelt desire in presenting the facts.