Adda Or Oldest Extant Dispute Between Jains And Heretics

This document is the first part of W. B. Bollée's analysis of the Jain text "Adda," which is presented as the oldest extant dispute between Jains and other religious groups (heretics). The text is from the Sūyagada (Sūtrakṛtāṅga), a canonical Jain scripture.

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided text:

Introduction and Etymology of "Adda":

• The lecture is introduced by the commentator Śīlânka, who begins with stanzas that define the term "adda."
• The term "adda" is analyzed through a fourfold niksepa (classification): name, figural representation, material, and figurative.
• Bollée explores the etymology of "Adda," hinting at a connection to the asterism Ardra, as mentioned by Pāṇini.
• Material "Adda" is explained as "moist" in various senses: with water, by nature, on the surface, oily, and sticky. Examples given include mud, certain plants, salts, camphor, and sticky substances.
• Figurative "Adda" is defined as being "full of love-feeling."
• A significant part of the introduction discusses the story of Addaya, a wandering ascetic who was the son of Adda, and how this lecture got its name from him.
• The text asserts the eternality and eminence of the Jina's word (the 12 aṅgas).
• It also notes that sometimes new truths emerge and are accepted, referencing the Isibhāsiyāim.

The Narrative of Ārdrāka and the Dispute:

The core of the text details the life story of Ārdrāka and the events leading to the dispute discussed in Sūyagada 2, 6.

• Ārdrāka's Past Life: The narrative begins with Sāmāiya, who renounces the world with his wife. Tragically, his wife commits suicide by hanging herself. Sāmāiya, despondent, also dies and is reborn in heaven. From there, he is reborn as Ārdrāka in Āddapura.
• Royal Encounters: Ārdrāka visits King Śrenika and presents gifts. He then interacts with Prince Abhaya, receiving a statue that triggers memories of his past lives.
• Renunciation and Marriage: Despite attempts to prevent him (even guards), Ārdrāka flees and renounces worldly life. However, he later breaks his vows when a sheth's daughter recognizes him by a footmark and he becomes entangled with her. They have a son.
• Return to Society: Ārdrāka eventually leaves again and encounters a group of former royal guards who have become dacoits. He instructs them, and they become monks.
• The Dispute: Upon entering the capital, they engage in a dispute with followers of Gośāla (an Ajivika leader), Buddhists, brahmins, and Tridandins. This dispute forms the substance of the canonical text that follows.
• Ārdrāka's Famous Utterance: The text concludes with Ārdrāka's profound statement comparing the difficulty of freeing oneself from worldly fetters to a mad elephant's struggle, but finding the entanglement of mere threads (worldly attachments) to be the most difficult to overcome.

Analysis of the Canonical Verses (Sūyagada 2, 6):

The majority of the provided text is a detailed verse-by-verse commentary by Bollée on the verses of Sūyagada 2, 6, which represents the dispute itself. These verses are attributed to either Gośāla or Ārdrāka (referred to as Nāyaputta by Gośāla).

• Gośāla's Criticisms: Gośāla criticizes Jain monks, accusing them of inconsistency. He questions why Mahāvīra, after living as a solitary monk, surrounded himself with many followers and preached publicly. He also suggests that Jain monks are opportunistic and not genuine ascetics if they engage in certain practices.

  • Verses 1-2 highlight Gośāla's critique of Mahāvīra's public ministry after a solitary beginning.
  • Verse 3 is Gośāla's assertion that solitary life and public life are mutually exclusive.
  • Verse 4 argues that a true monk remains detached even when teaching amidst a crowd.
  • Verses 5-6 define what constitutes a true monk based on vows, self-control, and shedding karma.
  • Verse 7 and 8 contain Gośāla's controversial statements about the permissibility of practices like drinking unboiled water, eating seeds, or consorting with women for ascetics, implying that if such acts are permissible, then laymen are no different.
  • Verse 9 is Gośāla's assertion that if those practices are allowed for monks, then laymen who engage in them should also be considered monks.
  • Verse 10 criticizes monks who beg for sustenance, suggesting they don't achieve liberation even if they renounce their kin.
  • Verse 11 is Gośāla's accusation that Ārdrāka's followers are praising their own limited views.
  • Verse 12 is Gośāla's statement that others criticize each other based on their own sectarian views, but they themselves only censure wrong views.
  • Verse 13 states that they don't criticize personal qualities but proclaim their own path.
  • Verse 14 describes a monk who harms no one and is guided by compassion.
  • Verse 15 Gośāla criticizes the solitary monk's discomfort in public places with diverse people.
  • Verse 16 describes wise monks who, after training, understand scriptures and are reluctant to engage with those who haven't.
  • Verse 17 outlines how a monk should respond to questions, not out of eagerness, fear, or royal command, but willingly to worthy people.
  • Verse 18 states that a quick-witted person will answer correctly, but one should avoid heretics.
  • Verse 19 portrays Mahāvīra (Nāyaputta) as a merchant who procures goods for profit, leading to karmic bonds.
  • Verse 20 asserts that a saint does not create new karma and sheds old karma by abandoning wrong views, highlighting those with excellent vows.
  • Verse 21 criticizes merchants for killing beings for profit and accumulating property, forming karmic bonds for material gain.
  • Verse 22 contrasts merchants (property-minded, sexually involved) with Ārdrāka's followers, who are seen as given to sensual pleasures and not serious believers.
  • Verse 23 criticizes those who don't give up killing or property, are inconsiderate, and whose gains lead to endless distress.
  • Verse 24 states that their gain is uncertain and temporary, unlike the gain from Mahāvīra, which has a beginning but no end.
  • Verse 25 praises a monk who does not harm, shows compassion, has unshakable faith, and whose actions are judged correctly, calling those who equate him with inconsiderate people fools.

• Bollée's Commentary: Bollée provides extensive linguistic, historical, and comparative commentary for each verse, referencing various ancient Jain texts (like Āyāra, Dasāveyāliya, Uttarajjhāyā), Sanskrit grammar, and even other religious traditions like Buddhism. He discusses textual variants, grammatical points, and potential interpretations.

Overall Significance:

The document is a scholarly analysis of a crucial Jain text that discusses an early theological dispute. It highlights the interaction between Jainism and other contemporary Indian religious movements, particularly highlighting Gośāla's criticisms of Mahāvīra's practices and doctrines. The detailed commentary by Bollée makes it valuable for scholars of Jainism, Indian religions, and early Indian literature. It sheds light on the complexities of Jain philosophy, ascetic practices, and early scriptural exegesis.