Streemukti Anyatairthikmukti Evam Savastramukti Ka Prashna

This Jain text, "Streemukti Anyatairthikmukti evam Savastramukti ka Prashna" by Sagarmal Jain, delves into a significant historical debate within Jainism concerning the possibility of liberation (moksha) for women, individuals belonging to other religious traditions (anyatairthika), and those who remain clothed (savastra or grihastha).

The core of the discussion revolves around how the Yapaniya tradition distinguished itself from the mainstream Digambara tradition. While the Yapaniyas, like the Digambaras, supported achelakatva (asceticism without clothing), they also uniquely championed the concepts of streemukti (liberation for women), grihastha mukti (liberation for householders), and anyatairthika mukti (liberation for adherents of other faiths). This stance brought the Yapaniyas closer to the Agamic tradition accepted by the Shvetambaras.

The text highlights that the concept of streemukti was present in early Shvetambara Agamic literature like the Uttaradhyayana Sutra (2nd-1st century BCE) and Jnatadharmakatha (1st century CE). However, the Yapaniyas are credited with the first logical arguments supporting it. The emergence of opposition to streemukti appears to have originated in South India around the 5th-6th centuries CE. Since the Yapaniya sect was present there and accepted the Agamic tradition, they were compelled to respond to this opposition.

The Shvetambaras gained awareness of the debate on streemukti through the Yapaniyas. The Shvetambara Acharya Haribhadra (8th century CE) was the first to address this discussion in his work, Lalitavistara, referencing the "Yapaniya Tantra." Before him, such a debate was not evident in the Bhashya and Churni literature.

The text traces the historical development of the debate:

• Early Agamas (pre-5th century CE): Texts like the Uttaradhyayana Sutra and Jnatadharmakatha contain explicit mentions of women achieving liberation. The Yapaniya tradition also recognized the Uttaradhyayana Sutra. Digambara texts like Kashayaprabhrita and Shatkhandagama, which are contemporary to Yapaniya texts, also appear to support streemukti. It is suggested that until the 5th-6th century CE, there was no prohibition of streemukti in Jain tradition.

• The Rise of Prohibition (from 6th century CE): The first prohibition of streemukti and savastra (clothed) liberation is attributed to Acharya Kundakunda in his work Suttapahuda. Even though Shatkhandagama is contemporary to Suttapahuda, it does not prohibit streemukti. Kundakunda argued that a siddha (liberated being) cannot be clothed, and since women, due to biological and social reasons, cannot remain unclothed, they cannot achieve liberation. He also questioned the possibility of women undertaking the strict vows of monasticism (pravrajya) due to their physiology (presence of life forms in the womb, navel, and breasts) and perceived mental instability and menstrual cycles, which would hinder pure meditation.

• The Digambara Stance: Post-Kundakunda, the Digambara tradition, particularly through commentaries on the Tattvartha Sutra, began to assert that liberation is only possible from a male body. Sarvarthasiddhi and Rajavartika by Akalaṅka are cited as prominent works solidifying this view. The Digambara tradition ultimately declared that only the nirgrantha (unclothed) path leads to liberation, thus implicitly excluding the clothed. This led to the denial of liberation for women, householders, and followers of other traditions who were necessarily clothed.

• The Yapaniya and Shvetambara Response: The Yapaniya tradition is credited with providing the initial counter-arguments to Kundakunda's prohibitions, likely in the lost "Yapaniya Tantra." Acharya Haribhadra (8th century CE) then adopted and expounded upon these Yapaniya arguments in his Lalitavistara. Later, Yapaniya Acharya Shakatayana (9th century CE) wrote an independent treatise, Stri-nirvana Prakarana, elaborating on the possibility of streemukti. The Shvetambara tradition followed suit, with numerous Acharyas like Abhayadeva, Hemachandra, and Yashovijaya offering support for streemukti.

The text meticulously details the arguments used by the Yapaniyas and Shvetambaras to counter the Digambara position. These include:

• Universality of the Soul: The soul's inherent capacity for liberation, irrespective of gender or external form.
• Challenging Exclusivity: Arguments against the idea that specific biological attributes (like the female body) inherently disqualify someone from spiritual attainment.
• Nature of Vows: The debate on whether clothing is an unavoidable parigraha (possession) or a necessary samyamopakarana (ascetic implement). The Yapaniyas argued that if the intention is detached (without attachment or mamatva), then even clothing or other worldly aspects do not hinder liberation.
• Flexibility of Path: The idea that different individuals may require different paths or practices (utsarga and apavada), and that clothing does not necessarily represent an "wrong path" (amarga).
• Reinterpreting Agamas: Countering interpretations that restrict the meaning of terms like "manushyani" (woman) in scriptures to only "woman-minded men" (bhav-stri).
• Inconsistency in Digambara Arguments: Pointing out that if certain conditions (like age or the absence of specific virtues) lead to a denial of liberation, then this should apply to men as well.

The text concludes by asserting that the Yapaniya tradition was, like the Shvetambara tradition, broad-minded and accepted the possibility of liberation for women, householders, and followers of other faiths. The prohibition of streemukti, anyatairthika mukti, and savastra mukti in the Digambara tradition is seen as a consequence of their later sectarianism and the strict adherence to acelakatva as the sole path to liberation. The debate on the liberation of householders and followers of other traditions is considered inherently linked to the question of streemukti, as these groups were also typically clothed.