Modha Ade Muhapatti Bandhan Sha Mata

Here's a comprehensive summary of the Jain text "Modha Ade Muhapatti bandhan Sha mata" by Bechardas Doshi:

This article, presented as a letter to Shri Parmanandbhai, is a researched commentary by Pandit Bechardas Jivraj Doshi, a renowned Jain scholar and grammarian known for his independent and fearless thinking. The author expresses his agreement with a previous note in 'Prabuddha Jeevan' that questioned the practice of wearing a Muhapatti (mouth cloth) across the mouth.

Pandit Doshi acknowledges that he often contemplates many such topics but refrains from expressing them. He observes that religious leaders (Acharyas, Upadhyayas, Sadhus, Sadhvis) tend to follow established traditions, finding comfort in them. He believes that discussions on these matters are beneficial, especially for the new generation, even if they cause temporary discomfort to the established figures. He likens their thick skin to one that deflects criticism.

He lists several other practices that he finds questionable, including the concept of ahimsa through drinking hot water, the propriety of emptying urine and dirty water on public roads, the potential for begging to diminish self-respect, and the adornment of religious idols with eyes, tilak, crowns, and ornaments, questioning their alignment with the spirit of Jainism.

However, he chooses to focus specifically on the Muhapatti and its history and purpose.

Key points from the article regarding the Muhapatti:

• Distinction between Outer Appearance and Inner Conduct: When a new religious order emerges, it often makes distinctive choices about its outward appearance. While inner conduct should be paramount, outward appearance gains importance due to the need for social recognition and identification. Some individuals only donate to those with specific attire, seeking spiritual merit.
• Lord Mahavir's Example: Lord Mahavir himself had no specific attire; his body was his attire. He was indifferent to societal norms, which allowed him this freedom. However, his tradition was reliant on the populace, making the issue of attire unavoidable.
• Historical Context of Jain Monasticism: According to the Uttaradhyayan Sutra, the dialogue between Keshi and Gautama states that attire (ling-vesh) has value only for social identification; the primary focus is the practice of self-control (sanyam). However, over time, the emphasis shifted from what was primary to what was secondary.
• Absence of Muhapatti in Early Jainism: Lord Mahavir and his disciples like Gautama were unclothed (achelak). Ancient scriptures mention disciples, including princes and merchants' children, who were initiated with only two possessions: a broom (rajoharan) and a begging bowl (patra). There is no mention of clothing or a Muhapatti for them.
• Origin of the Muhapatti: The author speculates that the Muhapatti might have originated around the time of Devanishigani or Skandilacharya, though there is no direct evidence. His hypothesis is that the Muhapatti's origin is linked to books.
• The Muhapatti and Books: When written books became prevalent in the monastic community, the Muhapatti likely emerged. While scriptures were formally written down a thousand years after Lord Mahavir, it's not impossible that books existed before. In ancient times, books were written on palm leaves. These leaves were bound with string, with holes punched through them. Books were rare and required special care. To prevent spitting (ghunk) on the books, which could damage the text and reduce their lifespan, a cloth was tied across the mouth while reading.
• Types of Muhapatti Wearing: Initially, the Muhapatti was tied across the mouth only during the use of books. It wasn't meant to be worn all the time. Some monks with pierced earlobes would tuck the ends of the Muhapatti into their earlobes to keep it in place. This practice continues today among some monks who wear the Muhapatti only while reading lectures, tucking the ends into their earlobes.
• Respect for Teachings: The tradition of wearing the Muhapatti during lectures likely began out of respect for the teachings of the Tirthankaras, which are preserved in books. This was to ensure that the books were not disrespected in any way.
• Social Etiquette: Later, holding the Muhapatti in hand while speaking or conversing with others may have become a sign of politeness, preventing spittle from reaching the listeners.
• Visual Evidence: Ancient statues and paintings of monks do not show them wearing the Muhapatti on their faces; it's either held in hand or placed with the rajoharan.
• Shift in Practice: The practice of wearing the Muhapatti during lectures and conversations seems to have evolved due to circumstances.
• Disassociation from Idol Worship: When the Lokashahi tradition (likely referring to a sect that moved away from idol worship) emerged, their monks also didn't wear the Muhapatti initially. However, when their followers became monks, a need arose to define their attire. While the idol-worshipping tradition kept the Muhapatti in hand, these new monks started tying it across their faces with a string. They adopted the Muhapatti as an additional possession, wearing it day and night, to differentiate themselves from the existing monastic attire.
• Modern Practices and the Terapanth: The Terapanth sect emerged from this tradition, with a slightly different style of Muhapatti. Modern Terapanth monks are even seen wearing shimmering, plastic-like Muhapattis tied with strings, suggesting a process of making them "sparkling."
• Questionable Rationale for Modern Muhapatti: The stated reason for wearing the Muhapatti is to prevent harm to microscopic organisms (vāyukāya jīvo) by preventing them from entering the mouth or being inhaled. However, the author finds this logic unconvincing, pointing out that the movement of hands and clothing also poses a risk to these organisms. He believes that actions that are unavoidable should be performed with caution and restraint, and any incidental harm is not considered binding.
• Muhapatti as a Distinguishing Mark: The author strongly suspects that the practice of wearing the Muhapatti is primarily a way to differentiate one sect from another. This adherence has become so strong that a monk, however virtuous, who doesn't wear a Muhapatti is considered corrupt or undisciplined.
• Social Pressure: Even monks who see no practical purpose in wearing the Muhapatti feel compelled to do so due to societal pressure, the need for sustenance, and to maintain their reputation.
• Muhapatti and Silence: Another possible connection is with the concept of "Muni" (monk), which implies less speaking and more silence. The author suggests that, like the wooden strips worn by Sankhya munis, the Muhapatti might have been intended to support the vow of silence. However, this purpose is no longer served, and the Muhapatti appears purely ornamental. The wearers themselves are often actively engaged in speaking, rendering the original purpose moot.
• Unity and Compromise: The article concludes with a call for unity within the Jain community. The author emphasizes that unity is impossible without mutual compromise. If sects remain rigid in their adherence to external practices, true unity will never be achieved. Significant adjustments in external practices, including the tradition of wearing the Muhapatti, will be necessary for achieving unity.
• Rejection of Outdated Beliefs: The author also criticizes the blind adherence to outdated beliefs, such as the literal interpretation of astronomical or geographical descriptions (like Jambudvipa being one lakh yojanas in length). He argues that in the age of science and empirical evidence, clinging to such unprovable notions is a misuse of societal resources.

In essence, Pandit Bechardas Doshi's article is a critical examination of the practice of wearing a Muhapatti, tracing its historical roots, questioning its current rationale, and suggesting that it has become more of a sectarian marker than a practice rooted in the original spirit of Jainism. He calls for critical thinking and a willingness to adapt external practices for the sake of broader unity and relevance in the modern world.