Harbhadra on Giving - Paul Dundas

8/3/2019 Harbhadra on Giving - Paul Dundas

1/44

PAUL DUNDAS

HARIBHADRA ON GIVING

The role of giving as a basic level category of action which, like language,

is learned early in human cognitive development and subsequently

comes to occupy a fundamental role in experience and civilisation is

indisputable.1 Yet, as with language, such a basic behavioural trait can

hardly be anticipated to be free from complexities.

It is likely that most individuals would acknowledge that there is more

to giving than mere transaction and perhaps concur with some variation

of the observation provided by that supreme recorder of bourgeoisplatitudes, Flaubert, according to whose Dictionnaire des Idees Recues

Le cadeau nest rien, cest lintention.2 Scholarship in the social

sciences, it is gratifying to record, also accepts that there is more to

a gift than meets the eye and, since the first publication seventy five

years ago of Marcell Mausss Essai sur le Don,3 it has been repeatedly

confirmed that what is truly significant about giving and receiving is

not the gift itself but the social relation which exchange engenders.

Most recently, gift giving has come to be discussed in the light of

Derridas claim that an understanding of the nature of the gift can only

be gained if it is somehow removed from the circle of exchange. For

there to occur a true gift, Derrida suggests, the specific terms under

which giving occurs have to be cancelled so that the gift is not in

any way recognised as being given.4 Such a gift is not motivated by

thoughts of return or reciprocity and is completely without self-interest.

The donation of such a gift might also be held either to be extremely

difficult to effect in the light of the social role which giving occupies or

to partake of a context far beyond that of mere absence of reciprocity. 5

Thus, while the gift might ostensibly maintain a residual phenomenal

appearance, when conceived in the most stringent terms its mechanism

can been theorised into virtually irresoluble contradiction, if not actual

oblivion.6

Mark C. Taylor, one of the most prominent commentators on religion

in the post-modern environment, sums up everything that is problematicabout giving in its Derridean context:

From an economic point of view, the disinterested giving of the gift is madness.The incalculable folly of the gift harbors a paradox that borders on the absurd. The

Journal of Indian Philosophy 30: 144, 2002.c 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.


2/44

2 PAUL DUNDAS

gift can only be a gift only if it is not accepted as such. But is it possible not toaccept a gift-especially if it is the gift of the sacred? Non-acceptance seems to beas impossible as acceptance. While the acceptance of the gift is its non-acceptance,the non-acceptance of the gift is its acceptance. . . . There is no gift without bond,

bind, ligature; yet there is no gift with bond, bind, ligature. By annulling the veryrelation it is supposed to secure, the tie that binds is its own undoing. . . .7

SOME ASPECTS OF GIVING IN CLASSICAL INDIA

This paradoxical gloss on giving, in which the very possibility of the

gift is called into question, may appear to epitomise a postmodern

intellectual world far from the preoccupations of classical South Asia.

Yet just such a position appears to have been anticipated in the Sutra

on the Instruction of Vimalakrti, a text which dates from the first or

second century of the common era and became renowned throughout theMahayana Buddhist world. The Sutra on the Instruction of Vimalakrti

describes how the lay bodhisattva Vimalakrti assumes an illness in order

to manifest his compassion for suffering humankind. In response to a

request by the Buddha that he be visited and cheered up, a succession of

the Buddhist establishments great and good describes how, in the course

of previous encounters with Vimalakrti, the bodhisattva had discomfited

them in almost burlesque fashion by demonstrating the ontologically

treacherous ground upon which the basic institutions and attitudes of

Buddhism were based. Thus, on meeting the arhat Mahakasyapa who

had embarked on the apparently innocuous enterprise of searching for

alms, Vimalakrti had demonstrated to that great ascetic disciple of the

Buddha that for the one who understands the true nature of reality, the

only way in which to accept food from a layperson is by not taking

anything at all.8

Although this radical reconfiguring of the implications of a funda-

mental practice has to be read against the background of the Madhyamaka

teaching that the conditioned nature of reality of necessity entails the

universal emptiness, and thus equality, of all entities and activities, it

provides a pointed introduction to classical Indian discourse about the

problematic nature of giving. The specific perspective of the foregoing

example is, of course, Buddhist. What is to my mind an even more

striking example revelatory of an awareness of the difficulties entailed

in giving occurs in the narrative collection entitled Kathakos.aprakaran. aby the eleventh century Svetambara Jain, Jinesvara Suri, whose role as

a commentator on Haribhadra Yakinputras As. t.akaprakaran. a will be

adduced later in this paper.9


3/44

HARIBHADRA ON GIVING 3

The basic codification of the procedure for giving (dana) in Jainism

was provided in the early common era, probably before the main

sectarian groupings of Svetambara and Digambara had appeared, by

Umasv

ati in his Tattv

artha S

utra 7.34: The worth of a charitable act is

determined by the manner of giving, the nature of the alms offered, the

disposition of the giver and the qualification of the recipient.10 The act

of giving itself is described at Tattvartha Sutra 7.33: Giving is disburse-

ment of ones own (possessions) for the sake of helping.11 Jinesvara

Suris story, the sixteenth in the Kathakos.aprakaran. a, remarkable for

the mundane and almost timeless nature of its narrative backdrop,

describes a group of Jain laymen debating among themselves about

the possibility of maintaining complete purity (suddh) when alms are

being given to an ascetic, providing in effect a critique of the Tattvartha

Sutras prescriptions.

Early in this fictional discussion, one of the laymen, Jalla, utters the

proposition, almost Derridean in tone were it not for its injunctive force,

that no one must give anything to anybody (na kassai ken. a vi kim. ci

dayavvam. ) on the grounds that there can be no real purity of giver, gift

or recipient.12 In particular, Jalla claims, something which has not been

reflected upon in advance is impossible, and so everybody is obliged

to think about alms to ascetics before the actual act of giving them.

Even if there is purity of the object to be given, the pure giver must be

the one who gives without expectation of recompense. This cannot be,

since everybody gives with expectation, even when giving piously. Jalla

clinches this position, at least to his own satisfaction, with the assertion

that he himself listens to the religious discourse of his teacher simply

in order that he may gain happiness in the next world. So there cannotbe purity of giver. Furthermore, there cannot be purity of receiver, since

when just one element of morality is missing (and can there really exist

an ascetic whose moral control is truly complete?), the whole edifice

of morality destroyed.13 For Jalla, an act of giving is doomed to being

compromised and rendered impure by both the prior anticipation of the

donor and the inevitably flawed nature of the recipient.

Although, as far as Jinesvara Suris story is concerned, this view

did not have any practical impact (the other debaters denounce Jalla as

promoting false doctrine), it may be regarded as reflecting the sort of

questions which were asked in medieval India about intentionality and

reciprocity in gift-giving centuries before Mauss and Derrida unmasked

the hidden tensions involved.

No doubt a gift-giving culture had to have been in place and assumed

the status of an institution for some time before it became an object of


4/44

4 PAUL DUNDAS

reflection. It need hardly be reiterated that Indian thinkers and holy men

of various sorts were from the Vedic period onwards keenly aware of

the centrality of gift-giving and exchange, with the reinterpretation by

the emerging renouncer traditions of the ancient ideology of sacrificeas the giving of alms to ascetics marking an important stage in cultural

practice.14 At the very outset, the relationship between householder donor

and ascetic recipient more often than not must have involved virtual

anonymity on both sides. However, as local communities gradually

emerged and became enmeshed in patterns of sectarian affiliation and

allegiance to a large extent under the impetus of the giving relationship,

potential contradictions must have became starkly actualised to those

of a critical turn of mind.

In particular, the innate propensity of a religious gift to be premedi-

tated with regard to possible meritorious reward, as highlighted by the

layman Jalla, could readily be seen to be at variance with the necessity

for a donation to an ascetic to be totally disinterested and free fromany expectation of return.15 Such a pure gift, completely divorced

from obligation and sense of exchange, was, as far as the ideology of

giving was concerned, the only appropriate donation to a holy man and

the sole source of merit.16 In actuality, historical evidence of various

sorts bears witness to the inexorable emergence of a relationship of

exchange between lay donor and ascetic recipient and the attendant

embedding of the ascetic community in the midst of its lay supporters,

a process which can either be regarded as a natural development or the

corruption of a pure ideal.17

All South Asian religious communities seem to have been aware of

the ambivalent nature of giving by laypeople to ascetics or to brahmanpriests and the dangers ensuing if the activity is taken to excess. In

Buddhism, for example, the famous story of the Buddhas earlier birth

as King Vessantara, who gave away his kingdoms wealth and prosperity

and eventually his entire family, might be regarded as to some extent

providing both an encomium and a critique of values embodied in the

institution. In Hinduism one significant strand of interpretation of the

dynamics of giving would see the process as involving the transmission

of moral sin.18 In what follows, I will concentrate upon showing how

early Svetambara Jainism confronted the difficulty of matching up to

the idealised requirements for both donor and recipient in the dana

context.


5/44


EARLY MEDIEVAL JAIN NARRATIVE ON THE DIFFICULTY OF THEFREE GIFT

As Laidlaw has pointed out, the classical idealised enactment of giving

in Jainism in which a layperson gives to an ascetic without any expec-tation of return is a genuine example of that rare phenomenon, the

unreciprocated free gift.19 This expression has a rather contemporary

ring to it, but early medieval Jainism was aware of the phenomenon,

understanding the free nature of a gift not to be a quality of what is

given, but rather as being determined solely by the attitudes, estab-

lished in advance, of donor and recipient. The difficulty of effecting

the free gift in this respect can be seen from two stories found in the

commentarial tradition on the fifth chapter of the Dasavaikalika Sutra,

the early locus classicus for alms seeking in Jainism and still, as far

as general practice is concerned, the foremost authoritative point of

reference for

Svet

ambara ascetics of all sects.The specific verses involved are 5.1.99100:

uppan. n. am. naihlijja appam. va bahu phasuyam. / muhaladdham. muhajv bhum. jejjadosavajjiam. .dullaha u muhada muhajv vi dullaha / muhada muhajv do vi gacchanti soggaim. .

Schubrings translation is as follows: Be it obtained in small or big

quantities, he should not find fault with, [provided that it is] pure. That

which was given to him without regard [to his person], he should eat,

if it is free from faults, as a [monk] who practices indifference. People

who give (in this way) and [monks] who accept (in this way) are rarely

to be found, [but] (both of them) [will] enjoy a happy life [in the future

existence].20

While there is no doubt that these verses are about disinterested giving

and receiving,21 the significance of the form muha in muhaladdham. ,

muhajv and muhada is at first glance not totally clear. Schubring

renders it by without regard and indifference in 5.99100, but

for 5.1.100 gives as an equivalent the mysteriously bracketed (in this

way). He also refers cursorily to Haribhadra Yakinputras commentary

(see below) in a footnote.

It seems that muha in these two verses is the equivalent of Sanskrit

mudha, normally in vain and must have a sense corresponding to

indifferently,22 a meaning which apparently can be confirmed in later

Prakrit.23 In fact, the real force of the term here was seen by Ernst

Leumann in his pioneering study of the niryukti commentary on theDasavaikalika Sutra, published in 1892, where he translated muhada

by gratis-gebend and muhajv by gratis-lebend, giving and living

without any return being made.24


6/44

6 PAUL DUNDAS

The earliest prose commentary on the Dasavaikalika Sutra, hardly

referred to by Leumann, is Agastyasim. has Prakrit curn. i which can

realistically be dated to around the fifth century CE.25 This provides

the basis for Haribhadra Yakinputras Sanskrit commentary whichwas written in the eighth century.26 On 5.1.99 (Pun.yavijaya 5.1.115),

Agastyasim. ha explains muhaladdham. (Pun.yavijaya: mudhaladdham. )

as signifying food got without the aid of practices such as omen

prognostication, a activity forbidden to Jain ascetics,27 while muhajv

is explained by avoiding the faults involved in producing alms

(uppadan. adosaparihar).28 On 5.1.100 (Pun.yavijaya: 5.1.116),

Agastyasim. ha explains muhada (Pun.yavijaya: muhadat) as involving

the removal of any assistance in worldly affairs (upakaraharan. e loe).29

The expression those who live gratis are difficult to find ( muhajv vi

dullaha) is justified by Agastyasim. ha by reference to the normal social

fact that people who receive are generally intent on gratifying givers

in return (dayagacittarahan. aparesu gen. ham. taesu).

To illustrate the point that those who give and live gratis are

extremely rare, Agastyasim. ha adduces two illustrative stories. In the first,

which has no specific Jain connection, a Bhagavata layman undertakes

to support a mendicant on condition that he does nothing by way of

reciprocity. One morning, thieves steal the laymans horse and, because

it is early, tether it to a thicket by a pool. The mendicant, who has

gone to perform his ablutions, sees the horse and on returning gets a

household servant to go to the pool under the pretext of retrieving his

loin-cloth supposedly left on its bank; whereupon the horse is seen and

recovered. The layman, realising that the mendicant has used a trick to

communicate the location of the stolen horse and so, even though in agood cause, broken his promise about non-reciprocity, turns him out.30

No doubt in this story there is some sort of satire on early Vais.n.avism,

perhaps with reference to the Bhagavad Gtas (3.19ff) teaching of action

without attachment to the result.31 It is certainly intended to convey

the difficulty, indeed almost the folly, of totally disinterested action and

thus the rareness and oddness of a pure act of giving.

The second story does have a specifically Jain point of reference.

A king of an enquiring nature who wished to investigate the purest

way of life summoned various people, including a junior Jain monk

(khud. d. ao), to a feast in order to find out how they ate. One said, By

the mouth, another By the hands and yet another, By the feet.But the Jain monk said, By nothing. On being questioned further

by the king, he clarified his response as follows: An individual eats

through that by which he is recompensed. Warriors eat through their


7/44


hands, while messengers and the like eat through their feet. Ministers,

bards and royal panegyrists do so through the mouth, since each one

of these eats by means of the organ which praises a particular patron.

But I am indifferent to the help of this world and (subsist upon) almswhich come without obligation. The king then renounced his kingdom

to become a Jain monk on the grounds that this was the correct way

of life.32

These two stories, found in Agastyasim. has curn. i and amplified by

Haribhadra Yakinputra, on the rarety of the pure giver who expects

nothing in return for his gift and the upright recipient who is beyond any

obligation to reciprocate a gift may appear to have a slightly contrived

air. Nonetheless, unlike the perspective of the fictional layman Jalla in

the Kathakos.aprakaran. a who saw the requirements of ideal giving as

impossible to fulfill, they reflect in narrative form a view of correct

conduct in dana as achievable, even if it is difficult to conform to the

necessary standards required.

HARIBHADRA AND THE PANCASAKAPRAKARAN. A

Most scholars who have written on giving in early Jainism ignore the

possibility of any controversy concerning the potential dangers involved

in that act and instead tend to collect and uncritically juxtapose isolated

of disparate origin statements relating to the ideal qualities of giver,

recipient and gift.33 It is my view that a rather more precise perspective

on this important topic might be gained by a narrowing of the focus

to concentrate upon the treatment of religious giving adumbrated by

the leading Svetambara Jain intellectual of the first millennium of the

common era, Haribhadra.

It is no exaggeration to say that the writings of the Haribhadra corpus,

with their authorship traditionally defined as emanating from a single

individual, lie at the very basis of medieval Jainism until as far as the

seventeenth century, when the last great Svetambara Jain intellectual

Yasovijaya saw himself as a kind of Haribhadra redivivus. 34 In what

follows I will attempt to show how the issue of giving and the pure

gift were dealt with by Haribhadra, concentrating on a small nexus of

material, specifically Pancasakaprakaran. a 13.3046 and other linked

sources. The advantage of analysing this material is that insight canbe gained into an early medieval Jain attempt to assess in relatively

extended terms the nature of giving within the context of debate, for

Haribhadras discussion is couched in the form of a response to a


8/44

8 PAUL DUNDAS

purvapaks.a which sets forth certain objections to the possibility of

maintaining the integrity of this central institution.

Haribhadras Pancasakaprakaran. a (henceforth Pancasaka), Treatise

of the Fifties consists of nineteen chapters dealing with monastic andlay behaviour, most of which contain fifty Prakrit verses composed

in the arya metre.35 The date of the work is tied to the issue of the

date of its author. Conventionally, Haribhadra is dated to the eighth

century. However, Williams, drawing on the insights of Muni Jinavijaya,

argued that on the basis of discrepancies between the Pancasaka and the

Sanskrit As. t.akaprakaran. a (henceforth As. t.aka) and S. od. asakaprakaran. a

in the description of puja and the manner in which the author identified

himself in colopha, along with other factors, it is possible to identify

the significant component works of the Haribhadra corpus as in actu-

ality having been written by two Haribhadras, who can be designated

Virahanka and Yakinputra (or Yakinsunu) respectively.36

Specifically, on the grounds of their similarity in never going

outside the narrow limits of early Svetambara Jainism indicated by

a common archaism of form and subject-matter, Williams ascribes

the Pancasaka and another Prakrit verse work, the Pancavastuka, to

Haribhadra Virahanka who is traditionally regarded as having died

in 529 CE.37 Although there are problems with the language of the

text which Williams characterises as representing a rather archaic

Maharas.t.r Prakrit,38 I will for the purposes of this paper guardedly

accept his view of the Pancasaka as being early and refer to its author

in what follows as Haribhadra. However, I will also amplify its account

of dana by reference to the sixth chapter of the As. t.aka and the t. ka

on the Dasavaikalika Sutra (already encountered above), two Sanskritworks which, again following Williams, I will take as having been

written in the eighth century by a writer who can be referred to as

Haribhadra Yakinputra.

The earliest edition of the Pancasaka available to me is that published

in Bhavnagar by the Jainadharmaprasarakasabha in 1912. This gives

the Prakrit mula along with Abhayadeva Suris t. ka entitled Sis.yahita

which was written in 1067 at Dholka.39 Dnanath Sarmas edition of

1997 gives the Prakrit mula with Sanskrit chaya.40 His Hindi translation

is not a simple rendering of the mula but also at times incorporates

portions of Abhayadevas commentary to give an expanded version. I

follow

Sarmas text, omitting his punctuation. Padmavijayas edition of1999 gives an expanded Hindi rendering of the mula (sometimes entitled

mularth, sometimes bhavarth) and a Hindi explanation (vyakhya).41


9/44


My treatment of Pancasaka 13.3046 takes the form of a translation

of and commentary upon each verse. It would be brave, not to say

foolhardy to attempt to pronounce authoritatively on the meaning of

the Prakrit used by Haribhadra in the Pa

nc

asaka without reference

to traditional exegetical opinion. As Williams points out, the verses

seem specifically intended to be studied with the aid of a commentary,

without which they are often unintelligible.42 Certainly, while much

that Haribhadra says appears clear, by no means all is free from opacity.

Familiarity with any available medieval exegesis, even if it occasionally

leads to dissent, is highly desirable when dealing with Jain Prakrit

texts of the early first millennium CE and thus I refer repeatedly to the

eleventh century commentator Abhayadeva Suri.43

Pancasaka 13 follows on from the previous chapters discussion of

the correct behaviour of monks (sadhusamacar) and details the proper

procedure to be undertaken to ensure purity of alms (pin. d. avisuddhividhi).

The bulk of this chapter deals with the difficulties which arise from themanifold possible differing origins and modes of production of food

and the means of seeking it and can be regarded as an expansion of

the canonical treatment found in Dasavaikalika Sutra 5.1.4657. As

Pancasaka 13 only once uses the term (pa)dan. a, giving, it might

be appropriate here to give by way of brief introduction Haribhadras

understanding of its significance and location in the configuration of

merit-making activity, in this case based on the Dharmasam. grahan. , a

work written in the same style of Prakrit as the Pancasaka and, although

not referred to by Williams, apparently contemporary with it.44

PREAMBLE: HARIBHADRAS DHARMASAM. GRAHAN. I ON THE EFFICACYOF GIVING

In the Dharmasam. grahan. Haribhadra describes how the efficacy of

dana, denoting both giving and liberality, is linked to the existence

of the soul (jva). If the soul does not exist and there is instead merely

a material body distinguished by consciousness, then there can be no

result of practices like dana.45 However, since it can be established

that there is a soul which moves on to further existences, practices

like dana can actually be said to have results. For if there can be,

as obviously, pleasant psychological feelings generated through the

practice of giving in this existence, why can there not be such feelingsin the next? Because actions bear fruit, so does dana. Agriculture serves

as an analogy for this.


10/44

10 PAUL DUNDAS

It might be argued that the results of liberality, such as the gaining

of fame and renown, can be seen directly, whereas merit is unseen.

However, unseen results can come from agriculture also, for the cultivator

may experience inner mental transformations such as pleasure andunhappiness in respect to the state of his crops. If there are no unseen

results from action, and thus no differentiation, then all creatures would

achieve deliverance and the ocean of existences, although experienced

directly, would make no sense. Since equal efforts bring about equal

results, how can there be a particular result if the unseen does not

exist?46

This confirmation that giving operates in a context outwith the mere

feeding of ascetics and does actually generate results in the future

provides the necessary background to Haribhadras description in the

Pancasaka of how that particular action functions in practical terms.

PANCASAKA 13.3033 ON THE PURITY OF ALMS: INTRODUCTORY

After stating that he will give a concise account appropriate for ascetics

(saman. a) in accordance with the instruction of his teachers, Haribhadra

affirms that because pure alms are a means for the monk both to gain

restraint and to maintain the self, the pure must be understood in the

following discussion as being that which lacks faults in respect to

origin, production and seeking.47 With regard to alms, there are sixteen

faults of origin, sixteen faults of production and ten of seeking, all of

which render the food given to a monk inappropriate and unfit to eat.48

These Haribhadra enumerates in twenty five verses which, as already

mentioned, are closely connected to the classical enumeration found atDasavaikalika Sutra 5.1.49

Haribhadra then proceeds to discuss the nature of pure alms.

Pancasaka 13.30:

eyaddosavisuddho jatn. a pim. d. o jin. ehi n. un. n. ao

sesakiriyat.hiyan. am. eso pun. a tattao n. eo

ALMS PURIFIED FROM THESE FAULTS HAVE BEEN PERMITTED

BY THE JINAS FOR ASCETICS. BUT THIS IS TO BE UNDER-

STOOD (AS APPLYING) IN REALITY TO THOSE ENGAGED IN

THE REMAINING ACTIVITIES.

Purity of alms relates to a broader pattern of sincere and committed

monastic activities. There has to be more than simple avoidance of

faults.


11/44


Eyaddosavisuddho. The form eya (Sanskrit etat) is characteristic

of both Jaina Maharas.t.r and Ardhamagadh. Cf. eyam. in 13.31.50 The

form eyad occurs elsewhere in a compound relation before dosa.51

Sesakiriyat.hiyan. am. . Abhayadeva defines remaining activities as thebasic ascetic duties such as inspection of robes and utensils to avoid

injury to life-forms (pratyupeks.an. a) and study (svadhyaya). These

components of monastic discipline, which will generally precede alms-

seeking, must be linked to the practice on the principle that when there

is no basis, then nothing which ensues can effect anything (mulabhave

uttarasyakim. citkaratvat).

Tattao. Abhayadeva: tattvatah. paramarthavr. ttya. Cf. Pancasaka 6.27

for n. icchayato, 12.45 for n. icchayen. a and 18.28 for n. icchayan. aen. a.

Pancasaka 13.31 establishes the foregoing by scriptural reference:

sam. patte iccaisu suttesu n. idam. siyam. imam. payamjatin. o ya esa pim. d. o n. a ya an. n. aha ham. di eyam. tu

THIS (GENUINE PURITY OF ALMS) HAS GENERALLY BEEN

DESCRIBED IN SCRIPTURAL STATEMENTS SUCH AS THAT

BEGINNING WHEN (THE TIME FOR SEEKING FOR ALMS)

HAS COME. AND THIS IS THE ALMS FOR A MONK. THIS

(STATE OF BEING A MONK) INDEED DOES NOT COME ABOUT

OTHERWISE.

Sam. patte iccaisu suttesu. Abhayadeva quotes Dasavaikalika Sutra 5.1.1,

the beginning of the alms-seeking (pin. d. ais.an. a) section: When

the time for begging has come, a monk should look for food anddrink in the following manner, free from troubles and delusions

(sam. patte bhikkhakalammi asam. bham. to amucchio / imen. a kamajogen. a

bhattapan. am gavesae) and alludes to 5.1.3: He should walk looking

front with his eyes on the ground as far as one yuga, in order to avoid

seeds, spouts, animals, water and wet clay (purao jugamayae pehaman. o

mahim. care / vajjanto byahariyaim. pan. e ya dagamat.t.iyam. ).52

Ham. di. Abhayadeva: handty upadarsane.53 The particle ham. di

occurs so frequently in the Pancasaka that it is worth acknowledging

(see 3.32, 43, 5.24, 8.42, 10.41, 46, 11.20, 33, 13.40, 14.30, 18.27,

18.34 and 18.42). Cf. Dharmasam. grahan. vv. 44, 64, 168, 183, 198,

354, 373, 377 etc. and Pancavastuka sporadically.Eyam. . Abhayadeva: etat tu yatitvam.

Abhayadeva quotes a Prakrit verse signifying the worthlessness of

ascetic initiation (dks. a) if there is no purity of alms54 He goes on to


12/44

12 PAUL DUNDAS

adduce as an alternative explanation pure alms as being the cause of

bhavapin. d. a (that is, alms conceived from the purely spiritual point of

view) which consists of a collection of qualities such as knowledge.55

This is in actuality the sort of alms which must be taken by a monk.Cf. Pancavastuka v. 308: suttabhan. ien. a vihin. a uvautta him. d. iun. a te

bhikkham. / paccha uvim. ti vasahim. samayarim. abhim. dam. ta.

The next verse describes how purity of alms can be ascertained,

since many of the faults in proffered food cannot obviously be seen.

Pancasaka 13.32:

dosaparin. n. an. am. pi hu ettham. uvaogasuddhimahim.jayati tivihan. imittam. tattha tiha van. n. iyam. jen. a

KNOWLEDGE OF FAULTS IN RESPECT TO THIS (THAT IS, ALMS)

WHICH HAS A THREEFOLD CAUSE CERTAINLY COMES ABOUT

THROUGH PURITY OF MENTAL APPLICATION ETC., SINCE ITHAS BEEN DESCRIBED IN SCRIPTURE IN THREE WAYS.

Abhayedeva, having quoted Oghaniryukti-bhas.ya v. 54a,56 then refers

to Dasavaikalika Sutra 5.1.56: He should ask about the origin of it

(i.e. alms), for whom it was made or by whom. Having heard that it is

pure beyond doubt, the man of restraint should receive it (uggamam.se pucchejja kassat.t.ha ken. a va kad. am. / socca nissam. kiyam. suddham.

pad. igahejja sam. jae).

The threefold cause is physical, verbal and mental, the modalities

which enable purity to be ascertained. The three ways relate to past,

present and future.Mental application is an innate function of the soul. Cf.

Dharmasam. grahan. v. 131: uvaogadilakkhan. o jvo.

The next verse demonstrates, according to Abhayadeva, that the word

bhiks. a (begged food) is as appropriate as the word pin. d. a (solid food

in the sense alms) for an ascetic; they both effectively mean the same.

Compare the final statement of his commentary on 13.31, namely that

the bhiks. a of the ascetic is conventionally understood as pin. d. a (ata eva

ca yatibhiks. aya eva pin. d. atvena ca rud. hatvat).

Pancasaka 13.33:

bhikkh

asaddo vevam. an. iyatal

abhavisau tti evam

ad

savvam. ciya uvavan. n. am. kiriyavam. tam. mi u jatimmi

SINCE THE WORD BHIKS. A FOR ITS PART THUS INVOLVES

TAKING WHAT IS NOT RESTRICTED, EVERY (STATEMENT


13/44


SUCH AS DASAVAIKALIKA SUTRA 5.1.1) WHICH EMPLOYS IT IS

APPROPRIATE TO A DUTIFUL ASCETIC.

Up to this juncture Pa

nc

a

saka 13 has referred to pin. d. a and not bhiks.

a,whereas the latter term, as well as occurring in the Dasavaikalika Sutra,

will be used in verses 34 and 36.

The standard designation for both alms-seeking and the food gained

thereby in Svetambara Jainism has come to be gocar, grazing,

indicative of the view that the Jain ascetic does not actually beg for

food, his seeking for it being random.57 It is not easy to locate an early

example of this term, which appears to be semantically connected with

gaves.an. a, literally in its earliest manifestation in Sanskrit searching

for cows and subsequently simply searching. The form found at

Dasavaikalika Sutra 5.1.2 and and 82 and 5.2.8 is goyara which,

although having the literal sense of movement of a cow, in actual

usage means little more than the area or range of a particular mental orphysical activity. Agastyasim. ha, curn. i ad Dasavaikalika 5.1.2, p. 99,

stresses the similarity of the ascetics alms-seeking to the movement

of the cow as deriving from their mutual imperturbabality in the face

of things like noise (gor iva goyaro, taha saddadisu amucchito jaha

so vacchago).58 That is to say, the comparison is not taken as deriving

from randomness of movement.

Vevam. . The Jainadharmaprasarakasabha edition and Padmavijaya

read cevam. .

Ti. Abhayadeva: ity upapradarsane.

Savvam. . See Pancasaka 13.31.

PANCASAKA 13.3436: REJECTION OF THE POSSIBILITY OF THE PURE GIFT

Pancasaka 13.3436 claim as a purvapaks.a that there cannot be an

act of giving to an ascetic which does not have implicit within it the

intention to engage in such an act and thus the desire to gain religious

merit; in other words, there is rejection of the idea that pure alms, as

described earlier in Pancasaka 13, are possible. The reference to donors

relates to those who are appropriately qualified to give. Here there is no

obvious sense of these individuals being exclusively Jain. Rather they

are described as being sis. t.a, a designation which can be traced back

to Patanjalis Mahabhas.ya and is common in dharmasastra literature,where it has the sense both of distinguished and learned, verging on

being a synonym for high born and brahman.59 In practical terms,

wandering Jain ascetics would not always have been able to gain alms


14/44

14 PAUL DUNDAS

from Jain lay households. Vegetarian brahman families, which placed

a premium on the purity of their cooked food and their behaviour

in general, would have provided a legitimate alternative source of

sustenance by default.

Pancasaka 13.34:

an. n. e bhan. am. ti saman. adattham. uddesiyadi samcae

bhikkhae an. ad. an. am. ciya visesao sit. t.hagehesu

OTHERS SAY THAT WHEN THERE IS ABANDONMENT OF THE

TYPES OF FOOD WHICH HAVE BEEN SPECIFICALLY MADE

FOR ASCETICS OF VARIOUS KINDS, (IT FOLLOWS THAT) NOT

WANDERING FOR ALMS, PARTICULARLY AMONG THE HOUSES

OF THE DISTINGUISHED (IS APPROPRIATE).

An. n. e bhan. am. ti. Abhayadevas gloss anye pare surayah. signifies that

the objection derives from the Jain ascetic community. Cf. Pancasaka

18.43.60

Saman. adattham. . Dasavaikalika Sutra 5.1.534, 60 and 61 stipulate

that an ascetic should avoid anything which he knows has been specific-

ally prepared for sraman. as (saman. at.t.ha). Haribhadra yakinputra ad

loc., p. 173a, glosses saman. at.t.ha by evam. sraman. artham. , sraman. a

nirgranthah. sakyadayah. . Cf. Pancavastuka v. 716: pasam. d. akaran. a

khalu aram. bho ahin. avo mahavajja / saman. at.t.ha savajja mahasavajja

ya sahun. am. .

Abhayadeva glosses sraman. adyartham. sraman. asadhupakham. d. i-

yavadarthikanimittam (That is, (food) for the sake of sraman. as, sadhus,

heretics and general mendicants).61 This seems a highly generalised

list of potential recipients of all sorts redolent of the neutral attitude

which ought to inform the idealised act of giving. For a more specific

list of five types of sraman. a, viz. nirgrantha, Buddhist, gairika, tapasa

and Ajvika, see Abhayadevas commentary on Sthananga Sutra, 5.3.

su 454.62 The seventh century Jinadasas Curn. i on Nisthabhas.ya v. 323

expresses scepticism about the results of giving by Buddhist laymen

to their monks.63

Uddesiyadi. For auddesika, designated (food), as the first of a

category of food made specifically for ascetics and not delimited to the

requirements of a family, see Dasavaikalika Sutra 5.1.55 (uddesiyam.kyagad. am. pukammam. ca ahad. am. /ajjhoyara pamiccam. msajayam. ca

vajjae) and Pancasaka 13.56. Cf. Pancasaka 17.6 and 17.8. Pancasaka

17.14 explains the term uddesiya by uddesiyam. tu kammam. ettham.


15/44


uddissa krate tam. ti.64 Abhayadeva ad Pancasaka 13.8 specifies

auddesika food as being intended for Jain and Buddhist monks.

Agastyasim. has curn. i ad Dasavaikalika Sutra 5.1.55, p. 113, refers

to the Pin. d. aniryukti for the various types of impure food.65

Sam. cae. If this form is not treated as a locative in a tatpurus.a

compound relationship with uddesiyadi, then it must be an absolutive

of an archaising, Ardhamagadh type.66 Cf. 13.37b: uddesigadicao.

Sit.t.hagehesu. Abhayadeva ad Pancasaka 13.35 glosses sis. t.a as

smr. tyanusarin.67 See Haribhadra Yakinputra, As. t.aka 6.3 for the

necessity of food being taken in the houses of good householders (na

caivam. sadgr.hasthanam. bhiks. a grahya gr. hes.u yat). Jinesvara glosses

sadgr.hasthanam. by brahman. adisobhanagarikan. am. Cf. Haribhadra

Yakinputra ad Dasavaikalika Sutra 5.1.49, p. 173a, for sis. t.akula.

Abhayadeva ad Pancasaka 13.13 refers to bhiks. akula. For the various

families from which Jain ascetics can get alms, see Acaranga Sutra

2.1.2.2. Agastyasim. ha, curn. i ad Dasavaikalika Sutra 5.1.1 states that

the ascetic should seek for alms in the same way with regard to high,

low and middle families (ucca-n. ya-majjhimesu kulesu).

The point of this verse, extreme in implication, may be considered

in the light of an episode in the well-known biography of Mah agiri,

one of the last senior monks who attempted to practice the fully ascetic

style of life of the Jinas. Having refused the remains of food which had

been left specifically for him, (apparently not long after?) he abandoned

food completely in the religious death of sallekhana.68

Pancasaka 13.356 expand on the foregoing and sum up the purvapaks.a:

dhammat.t.ha aram. bho sit.t.hagihatthan. a jam iha savvo vi

siddho tti sesabhoyan. avayan. ao tam. tan. te

SINCE EVERY UNDERTAKING OF DISTINGUISHED HOUSE-

HOLDERS IN THIS WORLD IS ESTABLISHED THUS THROUGH

TEXTUAL PRINCIPLE (WHICH DERIVES) FROM STATEMENTS

ABOUT EATING LEFTOVER FOOD (AS BEING) FOR THE SAKE

OF DHARMA,

Abhayadeva regards the specific context of action (arambha) here as

being cooking food for the sake of merit (dharmartham. pun.yartham

aram. bha aharapakavis.ayo vyaparah. ).69 Cf. Haribhadra Yakinputra,As. t.aka 6.3b: svaparartham. tu te yatnam. kurvate nanyatha kva cit.

Jinesvara interprets yatnam here as pakapravartanaprayasam, the

effort of engaging in cooking.


16/44

16 PAUL DUNDAS

Dhammat.t.ha. The Jainadharmaprasarakasabha edition reads

dhammat.t.ho.

Iha. Abhayadeva: iharyadese.

Tam. tan.te. Abhayadeva: tam. tran

ty

a

sastrany

ayena. For tam. tan.

te

elsewhere in the Pancasaka, see 2.44, 3.33, 34 and 49, 6.28 and 36 and

cf. 1.1, 4.4, 9.1 and 12.18 (suttan. e), 2.25 (eyan. e), 6.40 (tam. tat.hite)

11.32 (tam. tajutte), 11.42 (samayan. te) and 18.42 (tam. tajutti). Cf.

Pancavastuka v. 1210 for tam. tajutte. For the Sanskrit expression

tattantrantya, see Haribhadra Yakinputra, As. t.aka 13.3.

Abhayadeva identifies the statements referred to by Haribhadra in

the mula with the injunction found in the brahmanical smr.ti texts,

One should eat the left-overs given by ones teacher (gurudattases.am.bhunjta). This would appear to reflect Manusmr. ti 3.1167 which

describe how a married couple or a householder should eat left-over

food after priests, dependents and gods have been fed and worshipped.70

Pancasaka 13.36:

tamha visesao ciya akayatigun. a jan. a bhikkha tti

eyam iha juttijuttam. sam. bhavabhaven. a n. a tu an. n. am.

THEREFORE, SINCE (PURE) ALMS FOR ASCETICS SHOULD

HAVE SPECIFICALLY THE QUALITIES OF NOT MADE (BY

ONESELF, NOT CAUSED TO BE MADE, AND NOT APPROVED

OF AS BEING MADE), THIS (STANDPOINT) IS LOGICAL IN

THE CURRENT CONTEXT BECAUSE THERE DOES EXIST THE

POSSIBILITY (OF FOOD WHICH HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY

MADE FOR ASCETICS AND IS THEREFORE FAULTY), BUT NOT

THE ALTERNATIVE (NAMELY UNINTENDED ALMS, BECAUSE

THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF THIS).

Tam. ha. Abhayadeva: Because the undertaking of cooking in the houses

of the distinguished is for the sake of (giving alms to) brahmans etc.,

therefore . . . (yasmad brahman. adyarthah. sis. t.agehes.u pakaram. bhah.,

tasmat karan. at . . .).

Visesao. This echoes the forms ocurrence in Pancasaka 13.34b.

Abhayadeva presents the purvapaks.in as arguing that in general

(samanyatah. ) unintended alms are impossible.

Akayatigun. a. Abhayadeva: akr. tadigun. a svayam akr. takaritasam. kal-pitatvagun. a. Cf. Haribhadra Yakinputra, As. t.aka 6.1a: akr. to karitas

canyair asam. kalpita eva ca. These principles are common to the idealised

mendicant behaviour of all sects in classical India.


17/44


Eyam. . Abhayadeva: etad idam vastu. Cf. Haribhadra Yakinputra,

As. t.aka 6.6a, quoted in my remarks on Pancasaka 13.37.

Iha. Abhayadeva: pin. d. avicare.

Cf. Haribhadra Yakin

putra, As. t.aka 6.8 who responds to a p

urvapaks.a

similar to Pancasaka 13.36: dr. s. t.o sam. kalpitasyapi labha evam

asambhavah. / nokta(h. ) . . . The obtaining of even unintended food is

(actually) seen, so it has not been said to be an impossibility.

Sarmas Hindi version makes sense of this slightly elliptical verse:

Faulty food which has been made specifically (that is, with the intention

of giving to a monk) is logical, but unintended excellent food is not

logical, because there is no food of that sort.71

Padmavijaya, whose rendering (bhavarth) is almost identical to

Sarmas, refers to excessive (adhik) food being made with the intention

of giving it to ascetics.72

PANCASAKA 13.3746: PURE GIVING IS POSSIBLE

Pancasaka 13.37 begins the response to the purvapaks.a:

bhan. n. ati vibhin. n. avisayam. deyam. ahigicca ettha vin. n. eo

uddesigadicao na so vi aram. bhavisao u

(THE PURVAPAKS.A) IS STATED WITH REFERENCE TO ALMS

WHICH INVOLVE WHAT IS DIFFERENT (FROM ONES OWN

FOOD). THE ABANDONMENT OF THE SPECIFIC TYPES OF

FOOD INTENDED FOR MONKS IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD INRESPECT TO THIS (DISCUSSION), NOT (THE ABANDONMENT

OF) THAT WHICH INVOLVES AN UNDERTAKING (APPROPRIATE

TO ONESELF).

The cooking of food specifically to give to an ascetic is wrong, whereas

there is no harm in cooking food for oneself or ones family with the

attendant aspiration of possibly giving some of it to an ascetic. This

second type of food does not fall into the category of auddesika etc.

Vibhin. n. avisayam. . Abhayadeva: That is, which is prepared with

the intention of the sort Just so much out of this is for the family,

just so much for ascetics (ihaitavat kut.umbadyartham etavac ca

sraman. adyartham ityevam. kalpanaya yat sam. skr. tam ity arthah. ).Aram. bhavisao. Abhayadeva gives svocitaram. bhavis.ayah. as the

equivalent of the compound in the mula and explains it by of

the abandonment of that whose sphere, i.e. range of reference, is


18/44

18 PAUL DUNDAS

an undertaking, i.e. the activity of cooking (pakavyaparah. ) appro-

priate to oneself, i.e. suitable to oneself in respect to householders

(gr.hasthapeks.ayatmayogya). He continues: The implication is that

when one is cooking for oneself, there is no abandonment of the idea,Food will be given out of this to ascetics also. (svartham. pake

kriyaman. e itah. sraman. adibhyo pi dasyat[a] ityevam. vikalpitasya

na tyaga iti bhavah. ). Cf. Pancasaka 4.10: jayan. ae arambhavao and

4.12: arambhavato dhamme narambho.

As seen hitherto, the meaning of much of Pancasaka 13.3046 can

be clarified by reading the section in conjunction with the eight verses

of As. t.aka 6, allowing for the fact that the former deal with pure alms

and the latter more specifically with giving. Abhayadevas interpretation

of Pancasaka 13.37 is explicitly influenced by As. t.aka 6.6 (the first line

of which has a structure partly similar to Pancasaka 13.37a) and 7,

which he quotes with virtually no explanation. As. t.aka 6.6 specifically

deals with the intention underlying the preparation of food: In respectto whatever substance an intention (arises) with reference to alms which

are different from ones own food, at the time of action (i.e. cooking)

that (intention) is at fault (and) involves both (types of alms i.e. that

which has been prepared as yavadarthika and for the sake of merit).73

As. t.aka 6.7, employing the expression svocita which Jinesvara takes

as meaning suitable to oneself, that is to body and family (svasya

sarrakut.umbakader ucito yogyah. ), states that an intention appropriate

to oneself is not faulty: Intention which operates thus with regard to

an action such as cooking, which is appropriate to oneself (and does

not involve making food which ascetics should not eat), is not faulty

(i.e. does not cause alms to be faulty) because it involves morallypositive disposition (that is to say, it does not involve violence to living

creatures), like a pure mental or physical activity other than intention

(such as paying homage to an ascetic).74

At the back of this Jain discussion, particularly in the light of

Pancasaka 13.35, may be Manusmr. ti 3.118a: He who cooks for himself

eats only evil (agham. sa kevalam. bhunkte yah. pacati atmakaran. at).

Pancasaka 13.38 confirms that an undertaking, such as cooking, appro-

priate to oneself alone is not impossible:

sam. bhavai ya eso vi hu kesam. c suyagadibhave vi

avisesuvalam. bhao tattha vi taha labhasiddho

AND THIS IS POSSIBLE INDEED FOR SOME EVEN WHEN THERE

OCCURS IMPURITY ARISING FROM BIRTH OR DEATH (WHEN


19/44


DANA SHOULD NOT TAKE PLACE). FOR ONE CAN PERCEIVE

NO DIFFERENCE EVEN THERE BECAUSE THE GETTING (OF

ALMS) IS ESTABLISHED THUS.

Sam. bhavai. This is mirrored by asam. bhavah. noktah. in As. t.aka 6.8

(quoted above in the remarks on 13.36) which confirms that unintended

alms can be obtained. For sam. bhavai, cf. Pancavastuka vv. 1022, 1077,

1108, 1578 and 1619.

Eso. Abhayadeva: An undertaking appropriate to onseself , not an

undertaking merely for the sake of dharma (es. o pi svocitaram. bho pi,

na kevalam. dharmartham evaram. bhah. ).

Kesam. c. Abhayadeva: In the houses of some sis. t.as. The point

seems to be that some highborn households are more relaxed than others

about precise conformity to ritual stipulations.

Suyagadibhave. Abhayadeva: Even when impurity takes place i.e.

even when there exists a cause of the prohibition of dana, such asa birth or death ceremony, let alone when impurity does not occur

(sutakadibhave pi jatamr. takaprabhr. tikadananis.edhahetusadbhave pi,

astam. sutakadyabhave).

The term sutaka is of Vedic origin and came to denote the period of

impurity experienced after the birth or death of relative. This involves,

according to Manusmr. ti 5.83 (which refers only to death), ten days

for a brahman, twelve for a ks.atriya, fifteen for a vaisya and a month

for a sudra. During this period dana to an ascetic should not take

place.75 The linkage in the brahman case seems to be the ten lunar

months of liminality experienced by the unborn embryo and the dead

relative.76

It would appear that sutaka is a state informed by brahmanicalideology which the Jains, despite their differing doctrinal views on the

rebirth process and ritual pollution, have subscribed to for cultural

reasons.77 It was, however, from early in the medieval period, treated

as purely worldly, as Sanghadasa Gan. ins Vyavaharabhas.ya (c. 5th/6th

cen. CE) makes clear.78 The Jain sources which deal with this issue

seem to be largely post-Pancasaka.79 Relevant to this discussion is

Haribhadra Yakinputras commentary on Dasavaikalika Sutra 5.1.17a

pad. ikut.t.hakulam. na pavise (one should not enter the house of a

wretched, i.e. indigent, family), with the wretchedness explained as

deriving from either temporary involvement in the sutaka period or

permanent lack of food.80

Avisesuvalam. bhao. Abhayadeva: The ordinary sort of cooking which

is carried out when there is no sutaka period of impurity involved is

also perceived when the period of impurity is involved (avises.asya


20/44

20 PAUL DUNDAS

nirvises.asya pakaram. bhasya yavatah. sutakadyabhave sutakadav api

tavata eva upalam. bho darsanam . . .).

Abhayadeva conveys the intention of the verse: If the action of

allsis. t.as were to be for the sake of dharma, then when there is no

occasion for dana there would be no action or very insignificant action.

But it is not found so in the houses of some sis. t.as. Therefore an action

appropriate to oneself is possible. The opponent might claim in response

that there might possibly be an action appropriate to oneself, but there

is no obtaining of food (labha) in respect to it. However, this is not

the case, for (there is obtaining of food) with reference to an action

appropriate to oneself, let alone an action for the sake of dharma.

Thus (in the mula) signifies by that means (prakara) characterised

by appropriate behaviour (aucitya). For the achievement of the getting

of food i.e. the obtaining of a given share (sam. vibhaga) can actually

be seen. People are certainly seen giving to an ascetic food out of what

has been prepared for their own use.81

Jinesvara quotes Pancasaka 13.42 in his commentary on As. t.aka 6.8.

He comments on the reason why the obtaining of alms prepared without

intention is not an impossibility: It is seen that householders, although

not wishing to give in difficult situations such as the period of birth or

death impurity when there are no mendicants present, (nevertheless)

cook at night which is not an occasion for begging and so manage to

(contrive to?) give (. . . yato gr. hastha aditsavo pi sutakakantaradis. u

tatha bhiks. un. am abhave pi tatha ratryadau bhiks. anavasare pi pakam.kurvanti tatha katham. cid dadaty apti dr. syate).

Panc

asaka 13.39 is taken by Abhayadeva as the first of a two verseresponse to 13.36:

evam. vihesu payam. dhammat.t.ha n. eva hoi aram. bho

gihisu parin. amamettam. sam. tam. pi ya n. eva dut.t.ham. ti

AMONG HOUSEHOLDERS OF THIS SORT, AN UNDERTAKING

(SUCH AS COOKING) IS GENERALLY NOT FOR THE SAKE

OF DHARMA, AND A MERE MENTAL MODIFICATION (I.E. A

RESOLVE), EVEN WHEN EXISTENT, IS NOT FAULTY.

Evam. vihesu. Abhayadeva: Amongst people of this sort whose under-

taking of cooking is perceived as being without difference when the

period of birth or death impurity is and is not involved becausethey lack great familiarity with ritual prescription (evam. vidhes.u

uktaprakares.u atinaipun.yabhavena sutakadibhave tadabhave ca

nirvises.atayopalabhyamanapakaram. bhes.v ity arthah. ).


21/44


Dhammat.t.ha. Abhayadeva: For the sake of merit which arises from

giving to ascetics (sraman. adidanaprabhavapun.yanimittam).

Parin. amamettam. . The classic definition of parin. ama is Tattvartha

Sutra 5.41 (tadbh

avah. parin.

amah. ) where it is taken as change to

something which remains intrinsically the same. It can thus correspond

to mental modification (cf. Dharmasam. grahan. v. 140 at note 46

above). Haribhadra here takes the term as signifying something close to

resolve, a feeling less intense than a fully willed intention ( sam. kalpa).

Cf. Haribhadra Yakinputras commentary on Sravakaprajnapti v. 54:

ittham. ya parin. amo khalu jvassa suho hoi vinneo (when there is right

belief, then the parin. ama of the soul should certainly be regarded as

good), where parin. ama is glossed by adhyavasaya.82 See Pancasaka

8.11 for suddhaparin. amo and cf. Pancavastuka vv. 347, 601 and 688

for purity of parin. ama being necessary for nirjara, the elimination of

karma.

Sam. tam. pi. Abhayadeva: sad api vidyamanam api, astam

avidyamanam.

Ti. Abhayadeva: itisabdah. samaptau.

Abhayadeva explains 13.39b thus: The opponent might say that

surely that means that there is absence of the resolve (parin. ama) to

give in those who are sis. t.a. In reply it can be said that the resolve at the

time of cooking of the sort May our food be the same that is divided

among monks is a resolution (adhyavasaya) which does not involve

the act of cooking excessive food with the (premeditated) aim of giving

to holy men. That is what a mere mental modification means. Even

being so (i.e. a resolve), let alone not being so, it is not faulty and does

not vitiate the alms which are to be taken by monks. For that (i.e. aresolve) is not authorised as being a fault of alms (that is, amongst

those enumerated earlier).83

Pancasaka 13.40 amplifies the previous verse in substantiating that

alms are not vitiated by mere resolve or disposition to give:

tahakiriya bhavao saddhamettau kusalajogao

asuhakiriyadirahiyam. tam. ham. ducitam. tadan. n. am. va

THAT (RESOLVE) WHICH IS FREE FROM BAD ACTIONS ETC.

IS INDEED APPROPRIATE THROUGH ABSENCE OF ACTION OF

SUCH A KIND, THROUGH SIMPLE ESTEEM AND THROUGHMORALLY POSITIVE (MENTAL, PHYSICAL AND VOCAL)

ACTIVITY, OR (WHAT IS) OTHER THAN THAT(?).


22/44

22 PAUL DUNDAS

Abhayadeva takes the subject of the verse as being pakakale gr.hin. am.danaparin. amamatram.

Tahakiriyabhavao. Abhayadeva: Through absence of bad activity

consisting of acting (specifically) for the sake ofsraman. as etc.Saddhamettau. Sraddha, normally translated faith or confidence,

was from the beginning of the medieval period a necessary conditioning

factor ofdana in Jainism.84 Faith in this respect would presumably relate

to basic trust in the efficacy of the institution of giving. Hibbets, however,

convincingly argues that sraddha in this context rather suggests a kind

of unquestioning, non-judging esteem on the part of the giver towards

the recipient of the gift.85

Kusalajogao. Abhayadeva glosses kusala (Sanskrit kusala) as

prasasta; the kusalayoga is based on an internal disposition

(antarbhutabhavapratyayam eva). At Pancasaka 13.42, Haribhadra

uses kusala in the simple sense of skilled in. Here, however, and

elsewhere, he appears to employ the term in the Buddhist sense ofmorally positive, the use of this idiom presumably being indicative of

the interest in Buddhism which many of Haribhadras (and Haribhadra

Yakinputras) works evince.86

Asuhakiriyadirahiyam. . Abhayadeva: aprasastakayaces. t. aprabhr. tivi-

kalam. For the expression asuhajjhavasan. ao, see Pancasaka 16.28 and

30.

Tadan. n. am. va. Abhayadeva: Other than that mere resolve to give

at the time of cooking, such as the pious desire (pran. idhana) to pay

homage to a monk; like that is the example. For just as an act such

as paying homage to a monk at the time of giving does not vitiate

the alms, so similar to that is this resolution (adhyavasana) to give.

87

A possible alternative translation, without reference to Abhayadevas

explanation, might be, The alternative is other than that.

Pancasaka 13.41 confirms the preceding:

na khalu parin. amamettam. padan. akale asakkiyarahiyam.gihin. o tan. ayam. tu jaim. dusai an. ae pad. ibaddham.

THE MERE RESOLVE ON THE PART OF THE HOUSEHOLDER

WHICH IS DEVOID OF BAD ACTION AT THE TIME OF GIVING

CERTAINLY DOES NOT RENDER FAULTY THE ASCETIC WHO

IS FIXED IN THE COMMAND (OF SCRIPTURE).

Parin. amamettam. . See 13.39.

Asakkiyarahiyam. . Abhayadeva clarifies the bad action as involving

the destruction of life-forms by the householder.


23/44


Tan. ayam. . Abhayadeva: satkam. It is difficult to dissociate tan. ayam.in this verse from the postpositional adjective tan. aen. am. added to a

word in the genitive case to give the sense because of. The first

occurrences of this would appear to occur in Jinadasas

Avasyaka

Curn. i (seventh century) and Haribhadra Yakinputrass commentary

on the Avasyaka Niryukti.88 The construction is more common in late

Prakrit and Apabhram. sa89, eventually developing into an Old Gujarati

postposition.90 If the Pancasaka is indeed (approximately) an early

sixth century text, as Williams claims (see above), then tan. ayam. here

is perhaps the earliest attestable example of this form used in a proto-

postposition function. Alternatively, it may be indicative of the somewhat

later provenance of this verse. As some sort of postposition, tan. ayam.would here agree with parin. amamettam. and signify belonging to.

An. ae pad. ibaddham. . The monk established in the command of

scripture cannot experience any fault, because, in Abhayadevas

words, the command of scripture dispels faults (ajnaya eva

dos.avyapohakatvat).91 Cf. Pancasaka 7.2: an. ae pad. ibaddho and also

2.36: an. ai payat.t.aman. assa.

Pancasaka 13.42 rejects the view expressed in 13.345, namely that

one should not wander for alms among the houses of the distinguished,

because for them any undertaking is always performed for the sake of

merit:

sit.t.ha vi ya kei iham. visesao dhammasatthakusalamat

iya na kun. am. ti vi anad. an. am evam. bhikkhae vatimettam.

AND EVEN SOME DISTINGUISHED PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD

WHOSE INTELLECTS ARE PARTICULARLY VERSED IN RELI-

GIOUS TEXTS DO NOT ACT THUS. (TO CLAIM THAT THERE

SHOULD BE) NO WANDERING FOR ALMS (AMONG THEIR

HOUSES) IS THUS MERE WORDS (BECAUSE IT IS POSSIBLE

TO OBTAIN PURE ALMS AMONG THESE PEOPLE).

Sit.t.ha. Abhayadeva: Distinguished people, let alone the undistin-

guished.

Ke. Cf. kesim. ci in 13.38. Abhayadeva: Some, but not all.

The implication is those who do not excessively desire dharma

(anatyarthadharmarthinah. ) or who have not considered the expense ofmoney (on food for ascetics) (aparikalitavittavyayah. ).

Dhammasatthakusalamat. As indicative of the sort of statement found

in dharmasastra, Abhayadeva quotes the following verse, identified


24/44

24 PAUL DUNDAS

by Padmavijaya op. cit., p. 450 as Jinavallabhas Pin. d. avisuddhi v.

21 and as also occurring in the Dinacarya: sam. tharan. am. mi asuddham.don. ha vi gen. ham. tadem. tayan. ahiyam. / auradit.t.ham. ten. am. tam. ceva hiyam.

asam. tharan. e.92

(The bad which affects the one who takes and theone who gives what is impure in respect to subsistence bestowed on

ascetics becomes, on the analogy of the sick person, good when there

is no subsistence bestowed on ascetics). The first half of this verse

refers to a general principle, but continues by suggesting that there can

be exceptions when there is no formally correct bestowal of alms, i.e.

when there is some unusual occasion such as famine or sickness which

might require the giving and consumption of what would normally be

impure food. The medical analogy seems to suggest that what is bad

for one patient and his physician is good for another, depending on the

disease being treated.

Vaimettam. . Cf. Pancasaka 12.20 and also Dharmasam. grahan. vv.

284, 285, 301 and 317. Abhayadeva asserts that the logic which would

establish the opponents position is inconclusive (anekantika).

Jinesvara quotes this verse in his comm. on As. t.aka 6.8.

Pancasaka 13.43 gives a preliminary summing up of the response:

dukkarayam. aha eyam. jaidhammo dukkaro ciya pasiddham.kim. pun. a esa payatto mokkhaphalatten. a eyassa

IF (YOU THINK THAT) THIS IS DIFFICULT, THEN IT HAS

BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT THE DHARMA OF THE MONK IS

(ALSO) DIFFICULT. SO WHY (FOLLOW IT)? THIS EFFORT (ISDECLARED) TO HAVE LIBERATION AS ITS RESULT.

Eyam. . Abhayadeva: This means the obtaining of alms which are

unintended (asam. kalpita).93

Jaidhammo dukkaro. For a similar sentiment, see As. t.aka 6.8b: . . .

yatidharmo tidus. karah. . In his commentary Jinesvara quotes Pancasaka

13.43 and contrasts the alms begging of sectarians with the strict

stipulations imposed upon Jains.

Payatto. Abhayadeva: The exertion in getting pure alms.

Mokkhaphalatten. a. For the connection of correct alms-seeking and

moks.a, cf. Pancavastuka v. 297: him. d. am. ti tao paccha amucchiya esan. ae

uvautta / davvadabhiggahajua mokkhat.t.ha savvabhaven. a.

Pancasaka 13.44 according to Abhayadeva anticipates the view of

a karmavadin, that is to say an advocate of the centrality of action


25/44


alone in defining human destiny, who argues that the effort involved in

avoiding what is impure is not sensible; for there can be no fault in a

monk consuming such a substance on the grounds that he is under the

influence of karma which is to be held responsible:

bhogam. mi kammavavaradarato vittha dosapad. iseho

n. eo an. ajoen. a kammun. o cittayae ya

WITH REGARD TO THE (POSSIBLE CLAIM ABOUT) CONSUMP-

TION (OF IMPURE FOOD TAKING PLACE) BECAUSE OF THE

OPERATION OF KARMA, PROHIBITION OF FAULT IN THIS

RESPECT IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD (AS COMING) THROUGH

CONNECTION WITH THE COMMAND OF SCRIPTURE AND

BECAUSE OF THE VARIOUS NATURE OF KARMA (WHICH

ACTIVATES EATING).

Kammavavaradarato. Abhayadeva: Through the power of the karma

defined as knowledge concealing (jnanavaran. a) etc. which generates

ignorance etc.

Ittha. Abhayadeva: In respect to the eating monk.An. ajoen. a. Abhayadeva: Through connection with the command

of scripture means through relation with the words of the omniscient

(apta), not through having been brought about by karma (alone). That

is to say, contact with scripture is the necessary factor. Abhayadeva

quotes Pin. d. aniryukti v. 524 as an example of the principle ajnayoge

dos.anis. edhah. (there is no possibility of fault in conjunction with

scriptural knowledge): oho suovautto suyan

an.

jai vi gen. hai asuddham./ tam. keval vi bhum. jai apaman. a suyam. bhave ihara (if, generally

speaking, a master of scriptural knowledge who is concentrated upon

scripture eats what is impure (for some reason such as ignorance), then

even an omniscient kevalin can eat (the same thing); otherwise scripture

would be without authority.)94

Kammun. o cittayae. Abhayadeva: . . . of the karma which effects

eating (karman. o bhogapravartakasya). He continues: That karma is

assuredly of morally positive attendant circumstances (kusalanubandhi)

and the opposite. With regard to that monk (eating impure food) through

the influence of that former positive type of karma, there is prohibition

of (the possibility of there being) a fault through the development of

a particular resolve, even when eating is being carried out.95

Pancasaka 13.45 demonstrates, according to Abhayadeva, that there

would be a ridiculous consequence (atiprasanga) if one accepts absence


26/44

26 PAUL DUNDAS

of responsibility when there is an activity which takes place through

the influence of karma:

ihara n. a him. sagassa vi doso pisiyadibhottu kammaojam. tassiddhipasam. go eyam. logagamaviruddham.

OTHERWISE EVEN THE MAN OF VIOLENCE WHO EATS FLESH

THROUGH KARMA WOULD HAVE NO FAULT, SINCE THAT

WOULD BE ESTABLISHED (IF KARMA ALONE IS THE DETERM-

INING FACTOR). (HOWEVER) THIS IS CONTRARY TO (THE

BEHAVIOUR OF) THE WORLD AND TO SCRIPTURAL TRADI-

TION.

Ihara. Cf. Pancasaka 6.39, 12.35, 14.11, 15.5, 16.31, 17.40 and 49;

for iharaha, see 14.11 and 18.28.

Pisiyadibhottu. Abhayadeva interprets this as either genitive

(pisitadibhoktuh. ) or infinitive (pisitadi bhoktum). If the former is the

case, then it would be a highly unusual Prakrit example of a case ending

found normally only in Pali.96 Eating of flesh and the justification of

this action are from the time of the early Ardhamagadh agama strongly

associated by Jainism with the Buddhists.97

Kammao. Abhayadeva confirms that there is lack of fault only for the

one fully conjoined with scripture by reference to Oghaniryukti v. 760:

ja jayaman. assa bhave virahan. a suttavihimaggassa / sa hoi nijjaraphala

ajjhatthavisohijuttassa (Whatever injury might be be brought about

for the man who strives, who has mastered all the injunctions of the

scriptures and who has internal purity, that has as its result removal ofnegative karma.).

Logagamaviruddham. . Abhayadeva quotes an adage to the effect

that the orthodox (astika) generally do approve of violence: na

namastika him. sadikam. prayah. samanumanyam. te. For the expression

logaviruddhan. i, see Pancasaka 2.10.

Pancasaka 13.46 sums up, making the point that ascetics should take

pains to avoid food which lay people have deliberately made for them:

ta tahasam. kappo cciya ettham. dut.t.ho tti icchiyavvam in. am.

tadabhavaparin. n. an. am. uvaogadhim. u jatn. a

SO IT MUST BE HELD THAT SPECIFIC INTENTION OF SUCH A

SORT WITH REGARD TO THIS (THAT IS, ALMS) IS AT FAULT.


27/44


ASCETICS UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS ABSENT BY THE EXER-

CISE OF THE FACULTIES AND SO ON.

T

a. Abhayadeva: Since an undertaking for the sake of oneself ispossible, therefore . . .

Tahasam. kappo. Abhayadeva: (That is) the intent (abhipraya) at the

time of cooking of the sort, Just so much of this food is for ascetics

and so much for our family. The term sam. kappa in the sense of

(strongly premeditated, deliberate) intention is used for the first time

in this discussion, although Abhayadeva somewhat unhelpfully glossed

parin. amamettam. in 13.41 as sam. kalparupam. Sanskrit sankalpa is found

as early as e.g. Br.hadaran.yaka Upanis.ad1.5.3 and Chandogya Upanis.ad

3.14.2 and 8.1.5. Sam. kappa is also frequent in the Ardhamagadh agama

and in the Pali Canon.98 Forms deriving from sam. -kl.p occur at As. t.aka

6.12, 4 and 68.

Uvaogadhim. . Cf. 13.32. Abhayadeva: And so on includes ques-tioning etc. The monks in question are of ordinary, limited faculties

(chadmastha), not fully enlightened and omniscient kevalins.

RESUME OF PANCASAKA 13.3046

The main points and implications of Haribhadras argument in Pancasaka

13.3046 can be presented thus:

(a) Pure alms are an integral and defining part of Jain ascetic life;

their nature has been described in the scriptures.

(b) Knowledge of any impurity concerning alms comes about through

proper investigation by a recipient whose faculties are pure.

(c) Objection: getting pure alms is impossible. Members of high

born families, who might be expected to be appropriate donors,

are compromised on the grounds that by their nature they never

engage in any activity which is not oriented towards dharma. Any

act of cooking they perform will therefore have implicit within it

the calculated intention to give food to visiting ascetics in order

to gain religious merit.

(d) Reply: this is not so. What is involved is not food made separately

from ones own, or that of ones family, which through being

specifically intended for monks is inevitably impure.

(e) Furthermore, members of high born households do not alwaysact solely for reasons of dharma. Example: some of them can be

seen engaging in cooking even during the period of death or birth

impurity, which normally precludes giving alms to ascetics, in the


28/44

28 PAUL DUNDAS

same way as they do when there is no period of impurity. They will

give food to ascetics out of what they have prepared for themselves

without any specific premeditated intention to do so.

(f) Preparing food with the morally pure thought at the back of onesmind that some of it might be given to a visiting mendicant is not

wrong. Therefore an ascetic can confidently seek for alms among

upright households.

(g) It is admittedly difficult to conform to the correct requirements in

alms seeking, but the path of the ascetic is itself difficult and has

liberation as its result.

(h) There can be rejection of the view that eating impure food is brought

about by karma and is therefore blameless through being free from

responsibility. Reason: an otherwise faulty action is blameless only

if the agent is firmly grounded in scriptural precept.

(i) Conclusion: a fully articulated intention to give alms to an ascetic

in order to gain merit is wrong. Ascetics must carefully determinethat it is absent.

A SUPPLEMENT TO PANCASAKA 13.3046: HARIBHADRA YAKINIPUTRAON DASAVAIKALIKA SUTRA 5.1.49

The aforegoing treatment of the alms giving and seeking situation

provided by the Pancasaka can be amplified by reference to Haribhadra

Yakiniputras Sanskrit commentary on Dasavaikalika Sutra 5.1.49,99

a verse which specifically raises the context of the ascetic realising

that food etc. has been prepared to gain merit and as a consequence

rejecting it.100 Although the linguistic structure of this commentarial

argument is stereotyped, evincing the repeated use of ablative-introduced

clauses to signify cause which is characteristic of early Jain sastric

Sanskrit, the treatment of the issue is broadly the same as that of the

Pancasaka, particularly with reference to the birth or death pollution

period. However, the points raised are much more explicit, especially

with regard to merit, almost as if in attempt to unpack and clarify the

Pancasaka, which the As. t.aka also appears to do at times. Furthermore, an

additional perspective on the possibility of gaining pure alms, involving

the role of spontaneous giving(?) (yadr.cchadana), is deployed which

is found in neither the Pancasaka nor the As. t.aka.

The purvapaks.a, broadly the same as Pancasaka 13.346, is expressedthus: If one abandons food prepared for the sake of merit, then in

actuality (the consequence is that) one cannot get alms among distin-

guished families, because the distinguished engage in cooking (only)


29/44


30/44

30 PAUL DUNDAS

CONCLUDING REMARKS

My main purpose in this paper has been to draw attention to an early

medieval Jain discourse on giving which may lead to rather more precise

contextualisation of the subject in relation to the manner in which it

is represented at a later period. Unfortunately, it is likely that this will

not have greatly advanced the task of dating precisely the works of the

Haribhadra corpus. A late Prakrit form such as that apparently found in

Paneasaka 13.41 is not sufficient in itself to alter Williams view that the

text as a whole is written by Haribhadra (Virahanka) and therefore to be

ascribed to the sixth century CE. What does emerge clearly, however, is

that the two Sanskrit works of Haribhadra Yakinputra adduced above,

namely As. t.aka ch. 6 and the t. ka on Dasavaikalika Sutra 5.1.49, both

seem to have been composed in the light of Pancasaka 13.3046 and

that there can be identified clear interrelationships between these works.

As can be seen in my commentary above, the wording and sense ofthe As. t.aka often overlap with the Pancasaka, while it also seems that

in the area of intention, so important in a defence of the purity of alms

seeking, the Sanskrit text is making explicit what is not fully dealt with

in the earlier text. As for the commentary on the Dasavaikalika, the

context and examples are extremely close to those of the Pancasaka.

However, the introduction in the commentary on the Dasavaikalika

Sutra of the references to spontaneous taking of alms (allowing for my

highly tentative interpretation), not raised in the Pancasaka, suggests

an author who is not simply sanskritising in mechanical fashion an

authoritative Prakrit text, but one who is also attempting to fill in gaps

in a preexisting Jain argument by reference to the broader South Asian

culture of alms seeking. While it might seem reasonable to attribute, as

does traditional Jain scholarship, the authorship of this whole nexus of

material to a single personality designated as Haribhadra, in actuality

the balance of probability must be that we are dealing with two writers

of that name.

With regard to the institution ofdana itself in early medieval Jainism,

it should be noted that the focus of the Pancasakas discussion is very

much upon the donor as the potentially errant participant. The possibility

of intentionality is associated with him alone and there is no hint that the

dana process might be vitiated by an ascetic recipient feeling obliged

to reciprocate the gift. The main requirement of the ascetic is to be

watchful concerning the origins of alms and the unreasonable objectionthat he should not seek for food amongst those most qualified to give it

is rejected. However, the perspective on the dilemmas of lay almsgiving

taken by Haribhadra might also be described as realistic and pragmatic,


31/44


in that while the active anticipation of gaining merit when preparing

food is unacceptable, an element of pious aspiration that ones family

food might be shared by an ascetic is natural and not reprehensible.

Correct giving, the pure gift, at least from the perspective of thedonor, may thus be difficult to effect, but not impossible, as Jalla,

the proto-Derridean of Jinesvara Suris story, claimed. To refashion

Flauberts idee recue mentioned at the beginning of this paper, for

Haribhadra it is the intensity of the intention behind a gift which counts.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My thanks to Jim Benson and John Cort for comments on portions of

this paper. I am also grateful to Dr. Olle Qvarnstrom for allowing me

to consult his and Dr. Christian Lindtners unpublished translation of

the As. t.akaprakaran. a. I have, however, in what follows provided myown interpretations of this text.

NOTES

1 See John Newman: Give. A Cognitive Linguistic Study, Berlin/New York: Moutonde Gruyter 1996, pp. 24, and cf. Bernard Sergent, Les Indo-Europeens: Histoire,langues, mythes, Paris: Payot and Rivages, 1995, p. 307. For a recent fine-grainedstudy of gift giving in one particular historical context which leads to pertinentconclusions about modern approaches to charity and aid, see Natalie Zemon Davis,The Gift in Sixteenth Century France, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.2 Gustave Flaubert, Bouvard et Pecuchet, Gallimard 1979, p. 494, s.v. cadeau: Cenest pas la valeur qui en fait le prix, ou bien: ce nest pas le prix qui en fait la

valeur. Le cadeau nest rien, cest lintention. The Dictionnaire was intended tofollow the novel Bouvard et Pecuchet, published posthumously in 1881, as part ofa second volume.3 Presses Universitaires de France 1950. Cf. James Laidlaw, A Free Gift MakesNo Friends, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 6, 2000, pp. 617 and626627.4 Jacques Derrida, Given Time: 1. Counterfeit Money, Chicago and London: TheUniversity of Chicago Press, 1992, p. 13: For there to be a gift, it is necessary . . .that the donee not give back, not amortize, reimburse, acquit himself, enter into acontract, and that he never have contracted a debt. Cf. Laidlaw, op. cit., pp. 621622.5 Cf. Bruce Kapferer, The Feast of the Sorceror: Practices of Consciousness andPower, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997, p. 205: The most powerfulgift is that which projects toward the horizon of existence and beyond, and whichtranscends an orientation to interest and return. Within the orbit or span of such agift, all time and space is included, as well as cosmic and social relations of varying

temporality and spaciality.6 Derrida, op. cit, p. 14 and cf. John D. Caputo, The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida: Religion without Religion, Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana UniversityPress, 1997, p. 163: The impossible gift then is one in which no one acquires creditand no one contracts a debt. That in turn requires that neither the donor nor the


32/44

32 PAUL DUNDAS

donee would be able to perceive or recognize the gift as a gift, that the gift notappear as a gift. The gift must happen below the plane of phenomenality; too lowfor the radar of conscious intentionality.

Derrida has recently stressed that he is not affirming the absolute impossibility

of the gift, in that while it cannot actually be known, it can be thought of. See Onthe Gift: A Discussion between Jacques Derrida and Jean-Luc Marion, Moderatedby Richard Kearney, in John D. Caputo and Michael J. Scanlon (eds.), God, TheGift and Post-Modernism, Bloomington and Indianapolis: University of Indiana Press,1999, pp. 5960.7 Mark C. Taylor, About Religion: Economies of Faith in Virtual Culture, Chicagoand London: University of Chicago Press, 1999, pp. 4344 and 4546.8 See Etienne Lamotte, The Teaching of Vimalakrti (Vimalakrtinirdesa), London:The Pali Text Society, 1976, pp. 5052.9 The Kathakos.aprakaran. a was edited by Muni Jinavijaya, Bam. bai: Bharatya VidyaBhavan 1949. I have already referred to this particular episode in my paper Jainismwithout Monks? The Case of Kad.ua Sah, in N. Wagle and O. Qvarnstrom (eds.),Approaches to Jaina Studies: Philosophy, Ritual, Logic and Symbols, University ofToronto: Centre for South Asian Studies, 1999, pp. 2627 (text at footnote 62).The ostensible subject of the story in question is a merchant who giving without

donation (dan. am. vin. avi dem. to) went to heaven because he had correct mentalattitude. I intend at a later date to produce a study of this narrative collection as apolemical text promoting a sectarian stance.10 vidhidravyadatr.patravis.es. at tadvises.ah. . The translation is by Nathmal Tatia, ThatWhich Is. Tattvartha Sutra, San Francisco/London/Pymble: Harper Collins, 1994,p. 183.11 anugrahartham. svasyatisargo danam. The translation is mine. The possible tensionat the root of interpreting the nature of the act of giving in Jainism is, perhapsunwittingly, revealed by the rendering of this sutra by the authoritative lay scholarNathmal Tatia, ibid., who seems to take svasya as dependent on anugrahartham,translating Charity consists in offering alms to the qualified person for ones ownbenefit. By this interpretation, charitable giving is conjoined with that expectationof meritorious return uncharacteristic of the truly pure gift (see below). Compare therendering of the sutra in Pt. Sukhlaljis Commentary on Tattvartha Sutra of VacakaUmasvati, Ahmedabad: L. Institute of Indology, 1974, p. 296: For the sake of

rendering benefit to renounce a thing belonging to oneself that is called donation.See Maria Ruth Hibbets, The Ethics of the Gift: A Study of Medieval South AsianDiscourses on Dana (Harvard Ph. D. dissertation, 1999), UMI Dissertation Services,Ann Arbor, p. 79, for the commentator Siddhasenas suggestion that the benefitaccruing is both for onseself and others.12 Kathakos.aprakaran. a, p. 80, line 6. The wording of Jallas radical denial of theviability of dana would also seem to be a riposte to Dasavaikalika Sutra 5.1.49a:uggamam. se a pucchijja kassat.t.ha ken. a va kad. am. (And the ascetic should enquireabout the origin of alms, for the sake of whom or by whom it was made).

Jallas pronouncement is similar to that of the tenth century Digambara Amitagati:Except for karma earned for oneself by oneself, no one gives anything to anyone(nijarjitam. karma vihaya dehino na ko pi kasyapi dadati kincana). See P.S. Jaini,Collected Papers on Jaina Studies, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2000, pp. 136 and143. This observation, however, relates to karmic merit and the possible exchangethereof, rather than to dana. In parenthesis, it might be noted that the supposed Jain

denial of transfer of merit, recently vigorously reasserted by Tommi Lehtonen, TheNotion of Merit in Indian Religions, Asian Philosophy 10 (2000), pp. 193, appearsto be correct only in the narrowly delimited terms of learned sastric accounts ofkarmic mechanism. See the McMaster University Ph. D. thesis of 1999 by JackC. Laughlin, Aradhakamurti / Adhis. t.hayakamurti: Popular Piety, Politics and the


33/44


Medieval Jain Temple Portrait and John E. Cort, Doing for Others: Merit Transferand Karma Mobility in Jainism, in O. Qvarnstrom (ed.), Buddhist and Jain Studiesin Honour of P. S. Jaini (forthcoming).13 na hi acim. tiyam. kassa vi sam. bhavai, jao savven. a vi cim. tiyavvam. sahun. am.

dayavvam. ti. jai pun. a tam. davvasuddhe evam gayam. , taha vi nirasam. so jo dei tam.dayagasuddham. bhan. n. ai. evam. pun. a natthi, jamha savvo vi dakkhin. en. am. asam. saedei. parisamajjhe aham. guruhim. sam. lavio tti, paraloge ya me suham. bhavissai. takaham. dayagasuddh? na ya gahagasuddh, jamha ekken. a v i slam. gen. a vin. asien. asavve vin. assam. ti.14 For the early Vedic danastuti and the symbiotic connection between words andwealth expressed therein, see Laurie L. Patton, Myth and Money: The Exchange ofWords and Wealth in Vedic Commentary, in Laurie L. Patton and Wendy Doniger(eds.), Myth and Method, Charlottesville and London: University Press of Virginia,1996, p. 213. The reconfiguration of Vedic sacrificial ideology is discussed by OliverFreiberger, The Ideal Sacrifice. Patterns of reinterpreting brahmin sacrifice in earlyBuddhism, Bulletin d Etudes Indiennes 16 (1998), pp. 3949; footnote 17 to thisarticle refers to much relevant earlier secondary literature. Cf. also Ellison BanksFindly, Women and the Arahant Issue in Early Pali Literature, Journal of FeministStudies in Religion 15 (1999), pp. 7073, for the continuity of Vedic gift-giving

patterns into early Buddhism. Torkel Brekke, Contradiction and the Merit of Givingin Indian Religions, Numen 45 (1998), pp. 287320, draws on Brahmanical, Buddhistand Jain sources ahistorically to highlight the commonality of South Asian gift-givingculture and certain difficulties connected with it.15 See Axel Michaels, Gift and Return Gift: Greeting and Return Greeting in India.On a Consequential Footnote by Marcel Mauss, Numen 44 (1997), p. 251.16 Cf. Laidlaw, op. cit., pp. 621624. Hibbets op. cit., pp. 8491, offers valuableand theoretically-informed insights into the pure gift, as she does throughout herdissertation into all aspects of dana in post-eleventh century medieval India. Purityin the traditional Indian context implies accord with ideological order. For helpfulobservations on this in relation to food, see Renate Syed, Das heilige Essen-DasHeilige essen: Religiose Aspekte des Speiseverhaltens im Hinduismus, in PerrySchmidt-Leukel (ed.), Die Religionen und das Essen, Kreuzlingen: Hugendubel,2000, pp. 111118.17 While Hibbets, op. cit., pp. 8789, stresses that reciprocity is not entailed in

the ideal Indian giving context, she also notes that this may be subject to historicalvariability. For a view of reciprocity as built into Indian Buddhism, see RichardS. Cohen, Naga, Yaks.in. , Buddha: Local Deities and Local Buddhism at Ajanta, History of Religions 37 (1998), pp. 365 and 378 and for dana in the Indian Buddhistcontext as involving exchange, a contractual relationship, see Jamie Hubbard, Absolute Delusion, Perfect Buddhahood: The Rise and Fall of a Chinese Heresy,Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2001, p. 159.18 For a subtle reading of the Vessantara Jataka which views the main protagonis

Harbhadra on Giving - Paul Dundas

Documents

Transcript of Harbhadra on Giving - Paul Dundas