Kya Botik Digambar Hai

Here's a comprehensive summary of the Jain text "Kya Botik Digambar hai" by Dalsukh Malvania, based on the provided pages:

Title: Kya Botik Digambar hai? (Are the Bōṭikas Digambaras?) Author: Dalsukh Malvania Publisher: Z_Aspect_of_Jainology_Part_2_Pundit_Bechardas_Doshi_012016.pdf Source: Jain Education International (for private and personal use only)

This article by Dalsukh Malvania meticulously examines the question of whether the Bōṭikas, a sect mentioned in ancient Śvetāmbara texts, can be identified with the Digambaras. The author delves into the historical and doctrinal differences between these groups, drawing extensively from canonical Jain scriptures and commentaries.

Key Arguments and Findings:

• Defining "Digambara": The author first clarifies that "Digambara" in this context refers not to the literal meaning of "sky-clad" (naked) but to the Digambara sect. This sect's core belief is that monks must be naked, leading to the corollary that women, being unable to be naked, cannot achieve liberation. The prohibition of food for Kevalins (omniscient beings) is another characteristic.

• Introduction of Bōṭikas in Śvetāmbara Texts: The Bōṭikas are first mentioned in the Āvaśyaka Bhāṣya (commentary on the Āvaśyaka Sūtra) in verses 145-148. These verses indicate that a specific "view" or "false view" ( dṛṣṭi or mithyādarśana) originated in Rēvīrapura 609 years after Lord Mahāvīra's nirvāṇa. This view was initiated by Śivabhūti, a disciple of Ārya Kr̥ṣṇa, and was further propagated by his disciples Kauṇḍinya and Kōṭṭavīra.

• Inconsistency in Scriptural References: The Āvaśyaka Niryukti (a preceding commentary) lists only seven nihnavas (heretical sects) during Lord Vardhamāna's dispensation, and the Bōṭikas are not among them. This discrepancy leads to the conclusion that the Āvaśyaka Bhāṣya introduces the Bōṭika sect later. While the Āvaśyaka Cūrṇi (a further commentary) doesn't explicitly clarify the source of these verses, it acknowledges their distinction from the Niryukti.

• Bōṭika Characteristics and Doctrines:

  • Nudity: The term "Bōṭika" is explained as being naked due to a lack of virtuous conduct (cāritravikalatayā muṇḍamātratvēna). This suggests they were indeed naked.
  • Rejection of Jinakalpa: Śivabhūti rejected the continuation of the jinakalpa (the strict asceticism followed by the first Jinas).
  • Rejection of Possessions (Upadhi): They renounced possessions, including clothing.
  • Women's Liberation: Crucially, the text notes that Śivabhūti's sister, Uttarā, was permitted to keep a garment given by a courtesan, believing it was a divine gift. This implies that female ascetics (āryās) in their order could wear clothes. If female ascetics could wear clothes, the discussion about women's liberation would be moot.
  • Rejection of Utensils: They also rejected the use of alms bowls.
  • Interpretation of "Acela": They did not accept "ācēla" (naked) to mean "minimal clothing."
  • Acceptance of Āgama: They accepted the scriptures, with Ācāryāṅga being considered "universally accepted" (ubhayasammata).
  • Dispute over Clothing and Utensils: The primary points of contention in Śivabhūti's discussions with his guru were clothing and utensils.
  • Absence of "Woman Liberation" Debate: Notably, the early discussions about Bōṭikas, as preserved by Jinabhadragani (preceding Ācārya Hēmacandra), do not explicitly mention the prohibition of women's liberation as a defining characteristic.

• Bōṭika vs. Digambara - The Crucial Distinction:

  • Woman Liberation: The most significant difference highlighted is the Digambara doctrine that women cannot attain liberation. This doctrine is not explicitly found in the early discussions of Bōṭikas by scholars like Jinabhadragani.
  • Later Development of the "Woman Liberation" Doctrine: The author suggests that the prohibition of women's liberation became a defining feature of the Digambara sect later, possibly with Acārya Kundakunda. He posits that early Śvetāmbara scholars were either unaware of this Digambara tenet or did not consider it a point of contention with the Bōṭikas.
  • Ambiguity in Terminology: The author cautions against editors incorrectly marking sections about Bōṭikas in the Āvaśyaka Cūrṇi as "Digambara Uttpatti" (origin of Digambaras). He also points out that Hēmacandra, in his commentary on the Viśēṣāvaśyaka Bhāṣya, directed readers to the commentary on the 36th chapter of the Uttarādhyayana for discussions on "woman liberation," implying a mistaken conflation of Bōṭikas and Digambaras.
  • Use of Terms: Jinabhadragani uses "cēla" for clothing and "acēla" for naked, and importantly, does not use the term "Digambara" in his discussions of Bōṭikas.

• Interpretations by Commentators:

  • Ācārya Hēmacandra and Kōṭyācārya: Later commentators like Hēmacandra (following Kōṭyācārya) labelled Bōṭikas as "prabhūtatara-visamvādi" (greatly discordant) and even "sarva-visamvādi" (completely discordant), and "sarvāpalāpa" (one who denies everything).
  • Ācārya Ābhāyadēva: In contrast, Ācārya Ābhāyadēva, in his commentary on the Sthānāṅga, offers a more nuanced view. He distinguishes between monks who abandon external vestments but maintain true spiritual conduct (like Bōṭikas) and those who abandon spiritual conduct but retain external religious attire (like nihnavas). This suggests that some Bōṭikas might have possessed genuine spiritual qualities despite their external appearance.
  • Ācārya Śīlānka: Ācārya Śīlānka refers to the Bōṭikas' possessions, including a whisk (rajoharaṇa), which he equates with "aśvavāla" (horsehair). He interprets "Digambara" in the context of Bōṭikas as referring to their nakedness rather than their sectarian affiliation.

• Conclusion:

  • The Bōṭikas were not originally Digambaras.
  • The sect mentioned as "Bōṭika" in Śvetāmbara texts is distinct from the Digambara sect. It might be what is elsewhere identified as the Yāpanīya sect.
  • The Digambara sect, which denies women's liberation, is either a later development from the Bōṭikas or was not known to early Śvetāmbara scholars. The absence of any mention or refutation of the "woman liberation" doctrine in early niryuktis and bhāṣyas supports this.

In essence, Malvania argues that while the Bōṭikas were characterized by nudity and a rejection of certain possessions, their adherence to the belief that women could achieve liberation differentiates them from the Digambara sect, particularly in its later, more defined form. The confusion arises from later commentators who, influenced by the Digambaras' emphasis on nudity, conflated the two groups.