Propos Of The Botika Sect

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided text, "A Propos of the Botika Sect," by M. A. Dhaky and Sagarmal Jain:

The Identity and Origin of the "Botika Sect"

This scholarly article delves into the historical identification and origins of a Jain sect referred to as the "Botika" sect, primarily challenging the long-held Svetambara interpretation that "Botika" simply meant "Digambara."

Early Period and the Seven Heresies:

• Up to around 525 AD, the Svetambara canon recognized only seven "nihnavas" (heretics) who differed on minor points of doctrine.
• Jinabhadra gani kşamāśramaņa, in his Visheṣ=Āvaśyaka-bhāṣya (c. 585 AD), documented these traditional seven along with an eighth, Sivabhūti.
• While the earlier seven were inconsequential, Sivabhūti's secession led to a major schism, eventually forming a distinct sect known as the "Botika dṛṣṭi" (Bodiya ditti) by later Svetambara commentators.

The Misinterpretation of "Botika":

• Modern Svetambara writers have widely interpreted "Botika" as synonymous with "Digambara."
• This misinterpretation, prevalent since medieval Svetambara writings, has led to unwarranted criticism of Jinabhadra gani by Digambara scholars unaware of the error.
• Walther Schubring recognized the term's ambiguity but offered no alternative. Muni Jambuvijaya, however, correctly suggested that "Botika" likely referred to the Yapaniya sect.

Early Mentions and the Schism:

• The term "Bodiya" appears in the Bhāṣya on the Āvaśyaka-sūtra (c. 550-575 AD), which dates the origin of "Bodiya diṭṭhi" to 609 V.N.S. (132 AD).
• The earlier Mūla-bhāṣya (c. 550 AD) alludes to a question asked by Sivabhūti to Arya Krṣṇa at Rathavirapura, the site of the schism. This event is also mentioned in the Uttarādhyayana-niryukti (c. 525 AD).
• The Āvaśyaka-cūrṇi (c. 600-650 AD) narrates the Sivabhūti episode and lists "Boțiya" monks alongside other heterodox groups (Ājivaka, Tāpasa, Parivrājaka, Tatkṣaṇika) as unworthy of respect.
• An interpolation in the Ogha-niryukti (early 6th century AD) considers encountering a "Boțika" inauspicious, even prognostic of death.
• Contempt for "Boțika" is also found in the Sūtra-kṛtānga-cūrṇi (late 7th century AD) and the Daśavaikālika-sūtra-cūrṇi by Agastyasimha (c. 650 AD).
• Interestingly, the Brahmana author Bāṇa-bhaṭṭa, in his Harṣa-carita (early 7th century AD), describes an episode of encountering a nude Jaina monk (kṣapaṇa) as inauspicious, suggesting this belief was shared by Brahmans and Svetambaras.

Defining "Botika" and its Connection to Yapaniya:

• Haribhadra sūri's Boțika-pratiṣedha (or Boțikānirāsa) describes characteristics applicable to the Yapaniya sect, not the Digambaras.
• The etymology of "Botika" is uncertain, with suggestions ranging from "polluted" (derived from Gujarati 'boṭāvuṇ') to "shaven" or "nude" (derived from Gujarati 'boļāvuṇ').
• A crucial clue comes from the Ācārānga-cūrṇi (late 7th century AD), which states that Bodiyas are "sarira-parigrahi" (possessing only their body) and ate from folded palms (pāṇi-puṭa-bhoji), rejecting begging bowls.
• This practice of eating from palms is explicitly stated by Sivārya, the author of the Yapaniya work Ārādhanā (c. 6th century AD), who identifies himself as "pāṇi-tala-bhoji."
• Early Yapaniyas, unlike Digambaras, often bore honorific titles like "ārya" and are described as "pāṇi-pātrika" (one who uses palms as a bowl) in inscriptions.
• The Yapaniyas and Digambaras shared nudity and near-absolute non-possession. However, the Yapaniyas recognized the same early āgamas as the Svetambaras, indicating no doctrinal difference between them, unlike the Digambaras.

Sivabhūti: Originator of the Schism and the Yapaniya Sect:

• The separatist Sivabhūti, who initiated the schism leading to the Yapaniya sect, was not Digambara but Svetambara.
• Initially, Svetambaras were unaware of the Digambara sect, so "Botika" could not have meant Digambara but rather Yapaniya.
• The Sthavirāvali (hagiological list) places Sivabhūti as a disciple of Arya Dhanagiri and grand-disciple of Arya Phalgumitra, and a confrére of Arya Kṛṣṇa.
• The Sthavirāvali also suggests Arya Sivabhūti was a senior confrere of Arya Kṛṣṇa, contradicting Jinabhadra gani's portrayal of Kṛṣṇa as guru and Sivabhūti as disciple, which seems to stem from an earlier bhāṣya error.
• The Digambara work Bhāvapāhuda (late 8th century AD or later), attributed to Kundakundācārya, praises Sivabhūti for his spiritual purity, suggesting the Digambaras welcomed him due to his adherence to nudity and non-possession.

Dating the Schism:

• Based on his lineage after Arya Vajra (c. 1st century AD), Sivabhūti can be placed in the 2nd-3rd century AD.
• The Mathurā Śilāpatta (stone plaque) dating to the 95th year of the Kuṣāṇa Era (c. 200-238 AD) reverentially depicts Arya Kṛṣṇa.
• The traditional date of 609 V.N.S. (132 AD) for the Botika schism is considered inaccurate.
• Considering the Mathurā plaque and the elapsed time after Arya Kṛṣṇa's demise, the Sivabhūti schism likely occurred in the late last quarter of the 2nd century AD.

Devasena's Misinformation:

• Devasena's dating of the Yapaniya sect's founding to 675 V.S. (619 AD) or 205 V.S. (159 AD) is deemed incorrect and far from the truth. Devasena is noted for historical inaccuracies and sectarian bias regarding other Jain sects.

Conclusion:

The article strongly argues that the term "Botika" in early Jain literature refers to the Yapaniya sect, not the Digambara sect. This conclusion is supported by etymological suggestions, specific monastic practices like eating from palms, and the historical context of early schisms within Jainism. The misinterpretation of "Botika" as "Digambara" by later Svetambara writers led to historical confusion and misattributions. The schism initiated by Sivabhūti, leading to the Yapaniya sect, is placed in the late 2nd century AD.