Jin Pratima Ka Prachin Swarup

This is a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Jin Pratima ka Prachin Swarup" by Sagarmal Jain, focusing on the historical evolution of Jin (Jain Tirthankara) images and addressing a scholarly debate within the Jain community:

Book Title: Jin Pratima ka Prachin Swarup (The Ancient Form of Jin Images) Author: Sagarmal Jain Context: The article is presented as a critical analysis responding to a debate initiated by articles in the "Jinbhashit" magazine, specifically regarding the identification and characteristics of Digambara Jin images. The author aims to approach the topic from a historical and archaeological perspective, separating it from sectarian biases and current ownership disputes of temples and idols.

Core Argument and Analysis:

Sagarmal Jain critically examines arguments presented by scholars like Prof. Ratanchandra Jain, Dr. Neeraj Jain, and Pandit Mulchandji Luhadiya, who are referenced as proponents of specific interpretations, particularly concerning the depiction of clothing on Jin images. The author's primary objective is to uncover historical truths about Jin imagery rather than to support or refute any particular tradition.

Key Points and Counter-Arguments:

1. Critique of Sectarian Evidence: The author argues that relying on later sectarian texts (like the Visheshavashyak-Bhashya, dated around the 6th century) to prove ancient practices is problematic. Such texts are often written after the Digambara and Shvetambara traditions had already separated and reflect the established beliefs of their respective sects. The author emphasizes the need for contemporary or near-contemporary evidence.

2. The Question of Clothing on Images:

   • Visheshavashyak-Bhashya Reference: Prof. Ratanchandra Jain cites this text stating, "Jinenra Api Na Sarvathaivachelaka" (Jinas are not entirely unclad), implying Tirthankaras and their images should have divine garments. The author counters that this text is predominantly Shvetambara in its orientation and is from a period when the traditions were already distinct.
   • Tirthankara's Renunciation: While acknowledging that some texts suggest Bhagavan Mahavir accepted a single garment at his initiation, the author highlights that he renounced it after thirteen months and remained unclad thereafter. The author also questions the notion that a disciple's tradition would always differ in practice from their guru's.
   • Mahavir's Achalata (Uncladness): The author strongly asserts that Mahavir's adherence to uncladness is the reason why ancient Jin images were depicted as unclad. The depiction of unclad images also served to differentiate Jain Tirthankara images from the contemporary Buddha images, which were typically depicted with clothing.
   • Kalyanavijayji's "Pattavali-Parag": This Shvetambara reference suggesting subtle lines indicating garments is dismissed by the author. He argues that there is no such tradition, either ancient or modern Shvetambara, of depicting garments with subtle lines on the left shoulder (a practice found in Buddhist art).

3. Pravachana-Pariksha and "Guhya Pradesh" (Genital Area):

   • The argument that the genital area of Tirthankaras is covered by a divine aura, making it appear like clothing, is seen as a form of atishaya (extraordinary attribute) used to signify the unique nature of Tirthankaras. However, the author clarifies that while this might be a belief about the Tirthankara themselves, it doesn't apply to the depiction in an image. Scientifically, a nude image would appear nude.

4. Early Syncretism and Later Divergence:

   • Lack of Distinction: The author strongly supports the idea that for a considerable period after the schism, temples and images were not differentiated between the emerging Shvetambara and Digambara traditions. Archaeological evidence from Mathura's Kankali Mound and an inscription from Halsi clearly indicate this shared practice.
   • Emergence of Differences: The author pinpoints the 6th century CE as the period when distinct Shvetambara and Digambara images began to appear. Prior to this, all available Jin images were "sarvatha achal" (completely unclad) and nude. The depiction of clothed Jin images only started around the 6th-7th century CE.

5. Archaeological Evidence from Kankali Mound, Mathura:

   • Early Images (1st Century BCE - 1st/2nd Century CE):
     • Standing (Khāḍgāsana) Images: These clearly depict the lingam.
     • Seated (Padmāsana) Images: These do not show the lingam or any garment folds and appear generally unclad.
   • Inscriptions: The inscriptions accompanying these images often mention gurus, clans, and branches that are recognized by the Shvetambara tradition in their Kalpa-sutra's Sthaviravali. This suggests that even when the traditions were diverging, the early Shvetambara followers were worshipping unclad images.
   • Four-Fold Sangha Depictions: Some images feature the depiction of the four-fold Jain congregation. In these, nuns are shown clothed, but monks are depicted as nude. However, these nude monks are shown holding a complete blanket (kambal) and a ritual cloth (makh vastrika). Some also show a begging bowl in their hands. The author interprets these as indicative of an early stage in the development of the Shvetambara tradition, where unclad images were still worshipped.

6. Influence of Bhakti Tradition: The author suggests that the later Shvetambara tradition of adorning images with ornaments, embedding gem eyes, etc., was influenced by the devotional practices of the prevailing Hindu traditions.

7. Addressing Scholarly Concerns: The author acknowledges that scholars like Dr. Neeraj Jain and Prof. Ratanchandra Jain are concerned about escalating disputes over temple and idol ownership and are trying to establish the Digambara connection to ancient sites and artifacts. However, he stresses that this concern should not lead to the denial of historical facts, namely that the Shvetambara tradition also worshipped unclad images before the 5th-6th century CE, as evidenced by the Kankali Mound findings.

Conclusion:

Sagarmal Jain concludes that up to the 5th-6th century CE, both Shvetambara and Digambara traditions shared common temples and images, and both worshipped unclad Jin images. The distinct depiction of clothed images in the Shvetambara tradition emerged around the 6th century CE. The author firmly believes that the archaeological evidence, particularly from Mathura's Kankali Mound, is irrefutable in proving this early phase of shared practice and worship of unclad imagery.