Understanding Jains and Jainism| Prof. Padmnabh Jaini

By R. UMA MAHESHWARI
Reflections of Prof. Padmanabh S. Jaini, Professor Emeritus, University of California-Berkeley, on Jainas and Jainism.

JAINISM is a religion, broadly speaking, of “listeners” and teachers, over and above whom are the liberated souls, the ford-makers or Tirthankaras. There was yet another “assembly of listeners” (to borrow a phrase used in one of the edited volumes on Jaina society1), converging in the sweltering heat of Delhi in early June, to listen to Prof. Padmanabh S. Jaini share reflections and insights on Jaina epistemology and the history of the Jaina tradition in India. Jaini was the key resource person at the International Summer School of Jaina Studies (ISSJS) recently held at the Lal Bahadur Shastri Sanskrit Vidyapeeth in Delhi.

The ISSJS was initiated in 2005 as a platform to bring together academics, students and others interested in Jainism and enable them to share the doctrinal and experiential facets of Jainism. The Indian programme was designed to give scholars a course in Jaina tradition through classroom lectures, interactions with the Jaina community and visits to Jaina pilgrim places.
It started with just seven scholars in the year 2005 and the number increased to 28 in 2008, mostly by word of mouth. The ISSJS is also planning to establish research centres in Jaina studies. The first step in this effort is the setting up of the Global Centre for Ahimsa and Indic Research at Parshwanath Vidyapeeth in Varanasi. Organisations collaborating with the ISSJS include the University of Ottawa, the American Institute of Indian Studies and the Shastri Institute of Indo-Canadian Studies. Besides, there are coordinating units or partners in Texas, London, Hawaii and elsewhere.

Jainas have been a minority religious sect for some centuries now. Many would not even know the distinction between Jainas and Hindus on account of the relative obscurity and “silence” on this sect in Indian history and sociological studies. Jainism was one of the original Indian non-theistic traditions besides Buddhism that emphasised individual effort towards self-realisation and ultimate liberation without a god concept. Ahimsa (non-killing), right faith, conduct and knowledge and non-possession (aparigraha) in everyday life takes an individual to that ultimate liberation.

It was founded around the same time as Buddhism (though scholars believe it pre-dated the latter). However, there are relatively few works on Jainas in history when compared with other traditions. And if more and more people, especially in the West, are now turning their attention to Jainism, the credit goes to scholars such as Padmanabh Jaini, Paul Dundas and Peter Flugel.
Although Jaini began his academic career with a study of the Buddhist tradition, it was his work on Jainism (later in his career) that earned him greater worldwide recognition and gave Jaina studies a high profile in the academic community. He is the most respected name among the Jaina community worldwide; Jaini’s scholarship is vast and his knowledge of the scriptures in Prakrit and Sanskrit (not to forget Pali) makes him one of the rare scholars of the old tradition who tirelessly update his knowledge and perspective and constantly writes on various aspects of the Jaina tradition.

Jaina taught at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London before joining the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in the United States. He retired as Professor of Buddhist Studies at the University of California-Berkeley, where he is currently Professor Emeritus. His best known works include The Jaina Path of Purification (1979), Gender and Salvation: Jaina Debates on the Spiritual Liberation of Women (1991), Collected Papers on Jaina Studies (2001), Collected Papers on Buddhist Studies, and several papers in international journals of repute. Philosophy and epistemology (in both Buddhist and Jaina traditions) have been his forte.

However, Jaini wears his scholarship lightly. He spared his precious time for a conversation with the writer outside his tight schedule of daily lecturing. Following are excerpts from that conversation, supplemented by reflections on his approach to the subject and the course; and excerpts from his well-attended talk at the India International Centre (IIC) in Delhi on June 6, on “Heavens and Warfare in Buddhism and Jainism” (the latter added on request by the Jaina community).

Jaini’s lectures reflected the importance he gave to comparative analysis of religious or philosophical traditions in their contexts. His knowledge of Western traditions – religious and philosophical – to which he made several allusions, is vast. Pointing out the logical limitations within traditions, he would make us see the Jaina point as reflected in the canons and the post-canonical developments in Jaina thought and remind us at the same time that he was not passing judgment on other traditions. His reasoning for those limitations would make us review and revisit some of those limitations from a purely epistemological or logical perspective and draw our own conclusions. His intense lectures brought home the importance of approaching Jainas as a community through its philosophy.

In one of his earlier writings, Jaini had pointed out that Western scholarship to a large extent had been more devoted to Buddhism and Hinduism than to Jainism. This has had its own impact on research in Jaina studies worldwide. The “history of Western scholarship in Buddhism in particular,” he wrote, “is a long and colourful one, covering a period of more than 150 years… (while) in comparison the history of Jaina studies is brief and uninspired: the main portion of Western scholarship in Jainism was completed during a period of about 60 years beginning toward the end of the last century; the scholars of Jainism during this period were interested less in the religion itself than in the linguistic peculiarities of the Prakrit and Apabhramsa in which Jaina works were written. Besides this linguistic interest their religion was approached primarily as a tool for the comparative study of Buddhism….”2

H. Jacobi was among the earliest scholars to bring to the notice of the Western scholar the Jaina canonical text Ayaranga Sutta (Acaranga Sutra) in 1882. Incidentally it is one of the earliest publications of the Pali Text Society. And within Jainism, Western scholarship laid more stress on the Svetambara Jaina tradition than on the Digambara tradition.

Jaini said, “There is hardly anyone working on the Digambara tradition in the West. Though scholarship on any area of Jainism is welcome and needed, the Digambara tradition has most certainly been neglected. We also need more research in regional histories of Jainism (such as yours in Tamil Nadu), and much needs to be done particularly in Karnataka, which I hope scholars working on Jaina studies will do. The Jainas suffered a lot in Karnataka (by way of persecution and marginalisation) and I would be happy if some scholar would look into the Jaina – Lingayat conflict in this region.”

He has been critical also about the influx of – or, the intrusion, in a negative sense – money into the situation so far as some sections of the larger Jaina society3 are concerned. “Money,” he says, sadly, “is for two things – either to destroy your enemies or to give you power by giving hope to your friends and associates of some rewards. Businessmen can only see in terms of loss and gain….”

As for the summer school and its relevance, he said “coming to India itself is an educating experience [for those coming from outside India]. Mere classroom lectures and reading texts cannot be of great benefit as living in a place like Dadabari [a Jaina retreat of sorts in Delhi, where the scholars stayed during the course] can. Dadas are not tirthankaras; and this place is not something traditional Jaina monks would encourage.

“Unless you see these (subtle) things on your own you do not know too much (about practices in Jaina contemporary society). The idea of seeing the location of the religion and tradition is far more important than book knowledge. The scholars who have come here will also be visiting Jaina pilgrim centres which will add to their knowledge and experience of a tradition.”WAR & DEATH

Jaini’s talk at the IIC seemed appropriate in the context of the Sri Lankan situation at present. He believes that the war may be over in Sri Lanka but the struggle is far from over. But he had started to contemplate on the situation by means of a simple question: “Where do you go when you perish in war? Does a person who dies in war go to heaven?” And, as he said at the talk, this question led him to the Buddhist chronicle of Sri Lanka, the Mahavamsa. But, since Jainas were as eager to know what their texts said about the same question, Jaini included reference to the same question in the Jaina canonical text, Bhagavati Sutra (Vyahapannati, Book VII). World religions such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Indian Vedic tradition (and Krishna urging Arjuna to fight) speak of the concept of war and of warriors attaining heavenly abode if they are killed in war. What do the Jaina and Buddhist religions have to say to that?

Speaking of war in these two non-theistic traditions, Jaini said the Mauryan emperor Asoka was the only king in the history of the world who ever apologised for having killed and for war. It was one of the rare occasions where tradition and praxis converged.

The Mahavamsa mentions the war between the Sri Lankan king “Duttha Gamini” Abhaya (101-77 BCE) and the Damila (Tamil) king Elara, where the latter is killed. Apparently, Abhaya ordered the people of his kingdom to pay respects to the fallen Elara by observing silence when they passed the site of his death. Abhaya is filled with remorse that thousands died, and suffers.
Eight Buddhist arhats come to pacify him and absolve him of his wrongdoing (killing in war). Their reasoning, which convinces him, is that he after all killed just one and a half men; the rest were “unbelievers” – those with mithya-ditthi (non-Buddhist in the context of the Mahavamsa). They say to him “as for thee thou shall bring glory to Buddha…” and therefore convince him there are no obstacles in his passage to heaven.

According to Jaini, mithya-ditthi should be understood as a term used for one who does not believe in life after death. But in another text of the same tradition, there is a contradiction. Samyukta nikaya – in a dialogue between a “yodha-jiva” (one who made living from fighting) and the Buddha – gives a different meaning for mithya-ditthi. There the Buddha says that a person who kills is reborn in purgatory (avichi), especially if that person kills with the view (mithya-ditthi) that he would go to heaven therefrom. The Mahavamsa obviously gave a different meaning to the term to absolve king Abhaya of his crime of killing.

In the Jaina tradition, Somadeva Suri (10th century ACE) spoke of defensive war, yet was silent on the idea of death in the battlefield.

An opposite view is given in the Bhagavati Sutra (Vyahapannati, Book VII) where nine Malla and nine Lichhavi tribal chiefs of Kasi and Kosala died in a war. Indrabhuti Goyama (Gautama) and Mahavira have a similar dialogue (as in the Mahavamsa) where Mahavira tells Goyama that those who say these warriors shall go to heaven utter a falsehood. According to Mahavira, only two men attained heaven in this war – the archer Varuna of Vaisali who was a samana uvacaka (upasaka, adherent) and had taken the anuvratas (followed the basic tenets of Jainism) and his friend. Varuna had taken a vow to participate in battle only if ordained by the king and to not shoot the first arrow. In the battlefield, a wounded Varuna bowed his hands in veneration of Mahavira and proclaimed that he would henceforth renounce all possessions and give up all forms of violence until his death. He died instantly and went to heaven. His friend, who said he would do the same, was reborn as a human being. IMPORTANCE OF NON-VIOLENCE
Jaini showed the differences between Jainism and Buddhism on violence and killing. It was only after Varuna offered to renounce all (aparigraha) and give up violence of all kind that heaven became accessible to him; in the Buddhist text, the killing of one and a half (‘only’) “believers” and thousands of “unbelievers” assured king Abhaya a place in heaven. The importance of non-violence in all Jaina texts is highlighted through this story. These are two traditions that do not believe in a god concept. It is important to see their perspectives on warfare and its rationale.
Jaini’s talk was followed by questions on the inherent contradiction within the Buddhist doctrine on war and himsa. Would Buddha have condoned the same? Jaini urged the audience to understand the context, as he often did in his lectures, with a tinge of humour – that Buddha was after all not available at that time. And that violence is not the “privilege” of one community; there have always been enough reasons to go to war in history, but people needed to be reminded as to where they were going if they went ahead with this war.•

R. Uma Maheshwari is a freelance journalist based in Hyderabad and has a doctorate in the history of the Tamil Jaina community from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
1. Michael Carrithers, Caroline Humphrey, eds; The Assembly of Listeners: Jains in Society, Cambridge University Press, 1991.
2. Jaini, “The Jainas and the Western Scholar”, in P.S. Jaini, ed; Collected Papers on Jaina Studies, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 2001; page 23.
3. More often it is the wealthy (Svetambara) Jainas of the north who figure in commonplace perceptions about the Jainas. But there is a relatively hidden, relatively poorer (or middle-class) section among Jainas, and these are most often the Digambara Jainas. Their temples and images of tirthankaras therein are in sheer contrast to the ones found in Svetambara (ornate, rich, marble) temples; in the latter the eyes of the tirthankara image are open (with their bodies decorated with precious stones, jewellery and so on) in striking contrast to the austerity preached in the original Jaina doctrine. Digambaras take umbrage at this representation and there are usually conflicts between these two sects over the takeover of certain older Digambara temples and sacred places by rich Svetambara Jainas. And Digambara Jainas also state that their history and antiquity are being wiped out by the Svetambaras. Then there is the centuries’ old debate between the two sects over the antiquity and authenticity of their scriptures and practice.

The Schisms in Jain Tradition

A. K. Roy

THE FIRST SEVEN SCHISMSThe main schisms of the Jaina Church was the one between the Shvetambaras and the Digambaras. The Shvetambaras believe that even before this schism, there had been seven other schisms. These schisms had started when certain important leaders had then taken away their followers and established what one might call separate sects. However, these schisms had little permanent effects, for the newly born sects had either disappeared or had joined the main Church again on the death of their leaders. The seven schisms have been all described together in Avashyaka Niryukti, VII, 56-100. (The Digambaras do not know of these seven schisms at all).

The first of these schisms, as we have already seen, happened during the life of Mohair himself. Its leader was his own son-in-law Jamali. Jamali broke away with his followers from Mahavira, fourteen years after the latter had attained omniscience. the point on which Jamali differed from Mohair would appear to an outsider to be mere quibble.

The second schism was started by Tissagutta in Rajagriha. This happened also during the life time of Mohair and only two years after Jamali's schism. Tissagutta's followers were called Jivapaesiyas. They controverted Mahavira's view that the soul is permeated in all the atoms of the body.

The third schism was led by Asadha at Seyaviya, 214 years after the death of Mohair. Asadha's followers were called Avattiyas, and they held that there was no difference between gods, saints, kings and other beings.

The fourth schism was started by Assamitta in Mihila 220 years after Mahavira's death. Assamitta was a disciple of Kodinna who was a disciple of Mahagiri. Assamitta's followers were called Samuchcheyas and they held that since the end of all life will come some day, the effects of good or bad deeds are immaterial.

The fifth schism was started by Ganga at Kullakatiriya, 228, years after the death of Mohair. Ganga was a disciple of Dhanagutta, another disciple of Mahagiri. His followers were called Dokiriyas, and they held that two opposite feelings such as cold and warmth could be experienced at the same time.
The sixth schism arose in Antaranjiya and was started by Sadulaya, otherwise known as Rohagutta, 544 years after the death of Mohair. Sadulaya is said to have been the author of the Vaisheshika sutra. His followers were called Terasiyas and they held that between life and non-life there is a third state 'no-jiva'. According to the kalpa-sutra, the Terasiya sect was founded by Rohagutta a disciple of Mahagiri.

The seventh schism was led by Gottamahila at Dashapura, 584 years after Mahavira's death. His followers were called Abaddhiyas and they asserted that jiva was not bounded by karman.

No trace of these seven schisms is now left in the Jaina religion.

The Eighth Schism - Digambaras and Shvetambaras
the Jaina community is divided into two sects Digambara and Shvetambara. Both the sects have exactly the same religious and philosophical beliefs and practically the same mythology. The only noticeable difference is the mythology of the two sects is regarding the sex of the ninetieth tirthankara Malli. The Shvetambaras believe that Malli was a Woman, while Digambaras think that Malli was a man. This difference of opinion about Malli arises out of the few differences in the beliefs of the two sects. The Digambaras think that it is not possible for a woman to achieve salvation and as all trithankaras do achieve salvation, the nineteenth trithankara could not have been a woman. Another difference between the two sects is that the Digambaras think that all Jaina ascetics should follow the example of Mohair and remain nude, while the Shvetambaras think that the practice of remaining nude known as jinakalpa was given up by the great teachers of the Church within a few generations after Mohair and they had started wearing white garments. This practice was known as sthavirakalpa. The present - day ascetics according to the Shvetambaras need to follow only these great teachers (sthaviras), and it was not necessary to practice the jinakalpa. The third point on which the two sects differ regarding the food of the kevali. The Digambaras maintain that a kevali does not need any intake of food while the Shvetambaras think that they do. The point is academic, both the sects are unanimous that nobody is going to become a kevali in the foreseeable future.

Digambaras also deny two of the Shvetambara beliefs about Mahavira, that Mahavira's embryo was taken from the womb of the Brahamana woman Devananda and transferred to the womb of Trishala, and also that Mahavira had married and had a daughter. (Other minor difference between these two communities are given later).

It will be noticed that these and similar other differences are of a minor nature and do not affect the main tenets of the religion which were essentially same for both the sects. On the other hand these differences minor though they might be have cleaved the Jaina community into two distinct groups with practically no inter-mixing on the religious or even social plane ; for even inter-marriage between the two sects is not ordinarily permissible. This was because the two communities have necessarily their own temples the Digambaras having the images of the tirthankaras nude and the Shvetambaras clothed. Due to some reasons mentioned later the Digambaras refuse to recognize the canonical books of the Shvetambaras, and have their own texts.

Thus we see that the two sects swearing allegiance to Mahavira and his teachings behave in their practical religious life as two different societies. How a community with the same religious philosophy started behaving at some point of time as two distinct communities is not clearly known. The early religious literature of both the sects is practically silent on this point. It is thus possible to conjecture that the Church was undivided in the beginning the more orthodox one among the monks practicing nudity and the others not discarding clothes. Perhaps nudity was optional in the beginning it became later the fixed manner of all those who adopted it considering it to be the orthodox way of Jainism. the Separation of the Digambaras and shvetambaras according to this thinking was thus a gradual process and there was no point of the time when there was any actual schism. This appears to be a plausible theory.

A slight modification of this theory would be that Hemachandra was wrong, and the jinkaplika was never given up. One group of Jaina ascetics continued to practice it throughout, and this group was later called Diagmbara. The great scholar of Jainism Hoernle has argued in his essay on the ajivikas in the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics that originally the Digambaras were those Ajivika who were unhappy at he behavior of their leaders Makkhali Goshala at he time of his death. After leaving his sect they had joined Mahavira and had become the latter's follower. Thus the Digambaras as a group were separate form the time of Mahavira himself. Horernle's conjecture is based mainly on two grounds. Firstly not only did the Ajivikas practice strict nudity but also a few of their customs resembled those of Digambara monks to some extent. On this latter point Hoernle has cited some instance which do not seem to be bore out by facts. For instance Hoernle says that Ajivikas used to carry a stick and so do the Digambra monks now a days. As a matter of fact Shvetambara monk who may carry a stick and not a Digambara monk who can have practically no earthly possession. The second point on which Hoernle bases his arguments is that many ancient authors and lexicographers have confused the Ajivikas with the Digambaras.

The Jaianas themselves both Shvetambaras and Digambaras have there own versions as how the schism between them occurred. These appear in their later books composed long after the alleged occurrences. As stated earlier these are mere legends and cannot be verified as history. The Shvetambara version is given in Avashyakabhashya a work of about 500 A.D. The Legend is as follows:
A person called Shivabhuti who had founded a sect called the Bodiya in the city of Rathvirapura. The occasion for doing this arose in this manner:

Shivabhuti had won many battles for his king and the latter showered honors on him. Naturally, Shivabhuti became very proud and used to return home late at night. His mother on the complaint of her daughter-in-law refused to open the door one night and asked him to go to the place the door of which was likely to find open. getting wild Shivabhuti entered such a place which, however, turned out to be monastery. He asked the head priest to initiate him but the priest refused to do so, whereupon Shivabhuti himself plucked out his hair and wandered as a monk.

After some time this self-imitated monk Shivabhuti happened to come to the same place. The king his former friend sent him a costly garment as a gift.
Shivabhuti's superior protested and disallowed him to use such a garment. When Shivabhuti did not listen to his advice the teacher tore off that garment and used it as a mattress. Getting wild and excited Shivabhuti gave up all clothing.

(A slightly different version of this says that the occasion for it arose when once, his teacher, expounding the texts to class came up against the following alluding to a special stage of Jinakalpa.

"Jinakalpias were of two kinds. Some of them might have the necessary requisites, and others not. On hearing it Shivabhuti asked his teacher.; 'While there is the system of Jinakalpa why should be there be the bondage of clothes? A monk following jinakapla and living in solitude should following the principles of austerity, including nudity". The teacher tried to bring him round but Shivabhuti would not be persuaded and gave up all clothing. Thus created schism in the community).

His sister Uttara also followed him and she also became naked. But when the courtesans of the city complained that nobody would go the them seeing the ugly nature 9of the female body, Shivabhuti disallowed his sister to accept nudity. Thus nudity was started by the Bodiyas under Shivabhuti. The Bodiyas presumably were later called the Digambaras. This the eighth schism according to the Shvetambaras occurred on 609 A.D. or A.D. 83

The Digambara version of how the Shvetambaras broke away form the main Church which the Digambaras call the Mulasangha is completely different. It was recorded much later. The first record is found in Harisena's Brihakatakosa of A.D. 931. This is as follows :

In the reign of Chandragupta Marurya Bhadrabahu had predicted a terrible famine in the country of Magadha, for a period of 12 years. Hence a part of the community migrated to South India under his leadership, while the rest remained in Magadha.

When after some time the leaders met together in Ujjayini the famine was still there and hence they allowed the monks to wear a piece of cloth to hide shame while on the begging tour. But even when the famine was over these minks refused to give up the use of the piece of cloth. The conservative elements protested against this. And thus these Ardhaphalakas proved to be the forerunner of the Shvetambara sect.

The final separation came later due to Chandralekha queen of king Lokpala of Valabhipura. It is related that these Ardhaphalaka monks were invited by her ; but seeing them neither clothed nor naked the king was disappointed and the queen therefore asked them to dress completely. Therefore the Ardhaphalakas began to put on white clothes and came to be called Shvetapatas. This happened in A.D. 80.

(There is a reference to a Svhetapapa community in a grant issued in the the fourth regal year by the Kadamba king Mrigeshavarma. The grant of a village was made to a community of Jainas living in the city of Vaijayanti. The village was divided into three shares the first to the holy Arhat the Second to the eminent ascetics called Shvetapapas, who were intent on practicing the true religion and the third for the eminent ascetics called Nirgaranthas. Thus the Shvetapatas and Nirganthas in this city in Karnataka worshipping the same image of Arhat in a temple. Whether the Shvetapapas referred to in the inscription and the Shvetapatas sect referred to in the above Digambara legend were the same is not known).

There is a serious weakness in this Digambara version : It is not supported by the earliest Digambara epigraph that mentions famine. This epigraph, at Shravana Belogola, says that Bhadrabahu had predicted the famine in Ujjayini and not in Magadha; moreover he himself is not recorded to have accompanied the community to South India. Thus there are contradictions in the Digambara versions. On the other hand the Shvetambara version as to how the Church split into two is a bit too puerile for such an important event. It appears that all these stories were invented long after the actual split which in the beginning must have been a gradual process which was completed some time at he end of the 5th century. We do not know when actually the two sects finally separated but we have epigraphic records to prove that even in the 3rd century A.D. the difference, if any within the community was not sharp. The images found at Kankali-tila in Mathura belong to this period. They depict the tirthankaras in a nude state. Yet the donors of these images presumably belonged are the shvetambara sect for the shakhas and Ganas to which they belonged are the same of the donors were nuns or the disciples of nuns. Thus though the images were in the Digambara style the worshipers did not observe the Digambara orthodoxy about disallowing women to become nuns. Or the disciples of nuns. The exact dates of the Mathura inscription cannot be determined. They are dated in the Kusana era and the dates mentioned are from 5 to 98 of this era. However, the controversy as to when the Kusana era stated is not yet over and if we go by the date suggested by R.C. Majumdar then this era started in A.D. 244, and therefore the Mathura Jaina inscriptions belong to a period from the middle of the 3rd century to the middle of the 4th century. The inscription of Kajum in the Gorakhpur district refers to the installation of five images of Adikartis. This inscription is dated A.D. 460. The images found here are nude. The conclusion would be that the difference in beliefs of the two sects if they had at all parted company by that time, was not up to then clear-cut and both the sects worshiped nude images.

The actual parting of the ways perhaps came come time near the middle of the 5th century, when the Valabhi council was held. It is said that the canon of the Shvetambaras had been reduced to a state of disorder and was even in danger of being lost altogether. Hence in the year 980 after the Death of Mahavira a Council was held in valabhi in Gujarat presided over by Devarddhi Ksahmashramana the head of the school for the purpose of collecting texts and writhing them down. The twelfth Anga containing the puvvas had already gone astray at that time. This is why we find only eleven Angas in the recession which is supposed to be identical with that of Devarddhi.

The Digambaras completely deny the authority of the texts collected by this Council. They say that not only was the knowledge of the 14 Puvvas lost at an early period, but that 436 years after Mahavira's nirvana the last person who knew all the 11 Angas has died. The leaders who succeeded him knew less and less Angas as time went on, until the knowledge of these works was completely lost 683 years after Mahavira's nirvana. Thus the Valabhi council when the two sects actually parted company. As stated earlier all the tirthankaras either in the standing position and nude, or if seated in the crossed legged position are sculptured in such a way that neither garments not genitals are visible. Thus upto the Kusana period both the sects worshipped nude images. The earliest known image of a tirthankara with a lower garment is standing Rishabhnatha discovered at Akota in Gujarat. The date of his image has been fixed at the later part of the fifth century. This was shortly after the period of Valabhi Council.
The geographical distribution of the sects also would give some support to the theory that the Valabhi Council was the chief reason of the schism. It is found that the main concentration of the Shvetambaras is round about and within 500 kilometers of Valabhi. Most of the Jainas in Gujarat and western Rajasthan are Shvetambaras, while most of the Jain of the eastern Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and the Jainas of the South India are Digambaras.

It is possible that so far as the Jainas of northern India were concerned, they might have had a Council of their of there own at Mathura. Its President was Skandila. This name does not occur in the list of Sthaviras of the Kalpa-sutra, but the name of Shandilya occurs 33rd in the list. Jacobi remarks in this connection : "I think Shadilya is the same as Skandila, who was president of the Council of Mathura, which seems to have been the rival of that in Valabhi."
In other words, those who accepted the literature edited and collected at Vallabhi as canonical were later called Shvetambaras, and those who either has their own Council at Mathura, or did not have any Council at all as in South India, were later called Digambaras.

The Digamabaras of South India, long before the time the Valabhi Council of the Shvetambaras had met had started developing their own sacred literature. They had to do this because according to them the last of the acharyas who knew even a part of the angas had died 683 years after the death of Mahavira. The name of this acharya was Bhutavali. Nobody was left who knew even a part of the original canon. The next point off according to some Digambara lists was Bhadrabahu II. Kundakunda who claimed to be the disciple of this Bhadrabahu, therefore started writing the sacred books of the Digambaras. He is said to have written altogether 84 such books. The names of all the work composed by kundakunda are not known. But three of his works, viz., Samayasara, Pravachanasara, and Panchasikayasara are considered so important by the Digambaras that together they are called Prabhritatraya or Saratrraua, a name which reminds one of the prasthanatraya of the Vedantists. Indeed Kundakunda is considered so important a personality in the Digambara hagiology that a popular Digambara benedictory verses runs thus :

Mangalam Bhagavana Viro, mangalam Gautamogani,
Mangalam Kundakundyadyau, Jaina dharmostu mangalam.

To the Digambaras thus Kundakunda is an important a teacher as Sudharma is to the shvetambars.

Kundakunda was followed by many other Digambara writhers such as Vattakera, Kartikeya Svamin, etc. Practically all these authors belonged to South India. Thus by the early centuries of the Christian era while the intellectual center of the Shevtambaras was developing in western India, the Digambaras had their own intellectual center on south-west Karnataka. Perhaps this geographical separation of the intellectual centers was the main reason why the two sections of the Jainas drifted. To some extent even the gods began to differ: The Digambaras in South West Karnataka made Bahubali, a son of the first tirthankara one of their most important deities and built colossal statues for him. Bahubali on the other hand is scarcely, if at all, mentioned in the Shvetambara mythology.

The Digambaras called their Church, the Mula Sangha or the Main Church. The Mula sangha is then said to have branched of into Nandi, Sinha, etc. But all Digambaras to whatever gaccha they might belong claim the descent of their gaccha uttimately from the Mula Sangha.

In the first few centuries of the Christian era the dominant sect among the Jainas of the Deccan and South India were the Digambaras. Only one inscription - a grant - has been found in these parts of India which refers to the Shvetapatas (Shvetambaras) by name. This is the Devagira (Dharwar district) inscription of king Mrigeshavarmana referred to earlier. His period according to Saletore was A.D. 475-490).

The difference between the Shvetambaras and the Digambaras
The total number of points on which the Digambars differ form the Shvetambaras are eighteen, These are listed below:
The Digambaras do not accept the Shvetambara beliefs :
1. That a kevali needs food;2. That a kevali needs to evacuate (nihara);3. That women can get salvation. (In order to get salvation a woman has according to the Digamabaras to be born again as a man).4. That Shudras can get salvation;5. That a person can get salvation without forsaking clothes;6. That a house-holder can get salvation;7. That the worship of images having clothes and ornaments is permitted;8. That monks are allowed to possess fourteen (specified) things;9. That the tirthankara Malli was a woman;10. That the eleven of the 12 original Angas (canonical works) still exists;11. That Bharata Chakavarti attained kevali hood while living in his palace;12. That a monk may accept food from a Shudra;13.That Mahavira's embryo was transferred form one womb to another; and Mahavira's mother had fourteen auspicious dreams before he was born. The Digambaras believe that she had actually 16 such dreams;14. That Mahavira had a sickness due to the tejolesya of Goshala;15 That mahavira had married and had a daughter;17. That Marudevi went for her salvation riding and elephant; and 18. That a monk may accept alms form many houses.

Early History of Kolhapur

by Prof. E. V. Oturkar

(A.D. 100).
KOLHAPUR history may be divided into three periods, early Hindu period, partly mythic and partly historic, reaching to about A.D. 1347; Musalman period lasting from A.D. 1347 to about 1700; and Maratha period since 1700. Kolhapur would seem to be one of the very old cities in the country. In making some excavations on its site in 1877 the foundations of a large Buddhist relic mound were turned up and in the centre of the mound was found a square stone box with, on the inner face of its square lid, an inscription of about the third century before Christ recording " The gift of Bamha made by Dhamaguta." [Journal Bombay Branch Royal Asiatio Society, XIV. 147-154, Bombay Archeological Survey. Separate Number 10, page 39.] Copper and lead coins and brass models have also been found at Kolhapur which show that about the first century after Christ it was under rulers who were kings or viceroys of the great satakarni or Andhrabhritya dynasties of the North Deccan, one of whom bore the name Vilivayakura. [Journal Bom. Br. Roy. As. Soc. XIV. 152-153; Professor Bhandarkai's Early History of the Deccan, 17, 20.] About A.D. 150 the Egyptian geographer Ptolemy mentions Hippokura as the capital of Baleocures who governed the southern divisions of the Deccan peninsula. Hippokura is probably Kolhapur [In fact it is Dr. Bhandarkar who identifies Hippokura with Kolhapur; but Dr. Katre, who has examined the problem linguistically is of opinion that Hippokura cannot be derived from Kolhapura (Social Survey of Kolhapur by N. V; Sohani, Vol II, "page 2).] and Dr. R. G. Bhandarkar identifies Baleocures with the Vilivayakura of the coins. [Bertius' Ptolemy, 205; Deccan Early History, 20.]


(A.D. 750).

To about this time or a little earlier belong the Buddhist caves called Pandav Dara about six miles west of Panhala, and the Pavala caves near Jotiba's hill about nine miles north-west of Kolhapur. From the Andhrabhrtyas the district would seem to have passed to the early Kadambas (A.D. 500) whose chief capital was at Palasika or Halsi in Belgaum about a hundred miles south-east of Kolhapur. From the early Kadambas it would seem to have passed to the early and Western Calukyas from about 550 to 760; to the Rastrakutas to 973; from the Rastrakutas to the Western Calukyas, who held the district, to about 1190 and while under them, to the Kolhapur Silaharas (A.D. 942-1205), and to the Devagiri Yadavas upto the Musalman conquest of the Deccan about 1347. Of the early and Western Calukyas no copper plates or stone inscriptions referring to Kolhapur proper have yet been found, Of the Rastrakutas, two copper plate grants have been found, one at Samangad fort four miles south of Gadhinglaj and another at Sangli town. The Samangad grant, which belongs to the seventh Rasrakuta king Dantidurga or Dantivarma II, bears date sak 675 (A.D. 733-54) and mentions that Dantidurga's victorious elephants ploughed up the bank of the river Reva or Narmada, that he acquired supreme dominion by conquering Vallabha, and that he easily defeated the army of the Karnatak which was expert in dispersing the kings of Kanci or Conjeveram and Kerala, the Colas, the Pandyas, Sriharsa, and Vajrata. [Fleet's Kanarese Dynasties, 32-33. This is the earliest known inscription in which the date is expressed by figures arranged according to the decimal system of notation.] The Sangli copper plate grant belongs to the fourteenth king Govind V and is dated Sak 855 (A.D. 933-34) [Jour. Bom. Br. Roy. As. Soc. IV. 97; Fleet's Kanarese Dynasties 37.]. Of the Western Calukyas who succeeded the Rastrakutas in A. D. 973, there is a copper plate grant from Miraj, which belongs to king Jayasimha III. It was made by him in Sak 946 (A.D. 1024-25) at his victorious camp which, after warring against the mighty Colas, the lord of the city of the Candramila and after seizing the possessions of the lords of the Seven Konkans, was located near the city of Kolhapura or Kolhapur for conquering the northern country. There is an inscription of Somadeva in the Mahalaksmi temple at Kolhapur, but it does not refer to Kolhapur itself. Next in point of time is a reference in a grant of the Kadamb king of Goa of (A.D. 1078). Therein the king Sastha is said to have gone to Kolhapur and worshipped the Goddess Mahalaksmi. It was during Somesvara regime that Colas under Rajendra II invaded the Calukyan territory as far north as Kolhapur and even claimed to have set up a pillar of victory at this place. [Excavations at Brahmpuri by Dr. Sankalia and Dr. Dikshit pages 5-6.]

Apart from the inscriptional evidence on the basis of which the early history of Kolhapur is being traced here, there are many references in Puranas which throw light both on the derivation of the word Kolhapur and the sacredness that the city has come to possess on account of the location of Ambabai temple there. The Puranic evidence has to be utilised with great caution, but it would be wrong to keep it out of sight altogether. "According to Puranas," says Major Graham writing in 1854, " this tract of the country was originally called ' Kurwir' (Karavira) from the goddess Mahalaksmi using her mace (Kur) in lifting her favoured retreat from the waters of the great deluge." According to another legend the name " Kolhapur" is derived from the story that a demon " Kole " was defeated and killed on a hill in the vicinity of Kolhapur. [Sankalia and Dikshit, p. 1.] Karavir-mahatmya which was written in A.D. 1867 and is said to form part of Padmapurana refers to the goddess Mahalaksml. So does a section of the Markandeya purana called Devimahatmya, which is said to be not older than A.D. 800. Another Purana, Harivamia, refers to Karavirpura which is said to be the same as Kolhapur. It has been stated therein that Krisna, and Balaram in their fight against Jarasandha at Mathura had to go to the south and reached Karavirpura. The place was then ruled by Srgala who was a man of an evil disposition. The two brothers after some unsuccessful effort to settle elsewhere, gave battle to Srgala and killed him. The throne of Karvirpura was given to his son Sakradeva. After waiting for some time the two brothers went back to Mathura and they are said to have reached the distance within six days.

Among the literary references the most authentic and datable is that of Hemacandra (C.A.D. 1130), the famous Jain writer of Gujarat. In his Dvyasraya kavya he refers to the gift sent by the lord of Kollapura, who was blessed by the goddesses Laksmi and Gauri, for Prince Camunda, the son of Mularaja. If the account is a genuine record of events, then the antiquity of Kolhapur as a seat (pitha) of these goddesses can be placed at least one hundred years earlier than the time of Hemacandra himself (A. D. 1088-1173). In Visvakarma Sastra referred to by Hemadri in his caturvarga cintamani there is a reference to (Mahalaksml of Kollapura. Another work Sarasvatipurana refers to Kollapura as a Mahapitha (great seat) wherein the four goddesses Mahalaksml, Mahakali, Kolla and Kankala were installed in east, north, south and west of the place respectively by Jayasinha Siddharaja (C.A.D. 1093-1142). In Jain literature, Harisena's Brhat Kathakosa, composed in A.D. 931-932 at Vardhamanapura, probably Wadhawan in Saurastra, refers in one of the stories to Kolladigiripattana in Daksinapatha. This seems to be no other than Kolhapur. As this mention occurs in a folk story recorded in the 10th century, the town must probably have been known by this name a couple of centuries earlier. [The above account is based upon the Report on the ' Excavations at Bramhapuri' (1945-46) by Dr. H. D. Sankalia and Dr. M. G. Dikshit, pp. 1 to 3]

Fresh light has been thrown by recent excavations on the antiquity and the earliest habitation of this place. The report on the excavations states that the oldest village from out of which Kolhapur later developed into a great city was situated on a hill on the banks of the river Pancaganga. It is now known as Bramhapuri. " An inscription of the Kolhapura Silahara king Gandaraditya of Saka 1048' (A.D. 1126-27) calls Kolhapura a Mahatirtha and refers to a temple Khedaditya (a Sun temple) at Bramhapuri." The statement in the inscription that Kolhapura or Bramhapuri was created by Brahman might signify that the site of Bramhapuri was so old that its origin in course of time was attributed to Brahma, the lord of creation himself. The inscription also mentions the capital Vallavadagrama, identified with Valavade, the site of the present Radhanagari, 27 miles south-west of Kolhapur. [Sankalia and Dikshit, p. 4. The exact identification of Vallavadagrama is controversial.] The years later in Saka 1058 (A.D. 1135) the same king's patronage to a Jaina temple by the name Rupa-Narayana at Kolhapur is referred to in an inscription located in the same temple in the present (Sukrawar Peth).