Tenth Wonder Domestication And Reform In Medieval Svetambara Jainism

Here's a comprehensive summary of Paul Dundas's chapter "The Tenth Wonder: Domestication and Reform in Medieval Svetambara Jainism," based on the provided text:

The chapter explores a period of significant reform and internal debate within Svetambara Jainism, particularly focusing on the rise of the Kharatara Gaccha in the 11th century AD. The core of this reform movement was a critique of what they perceived as the corruption and deviation from scriptural norms by other Jain monks, particularly the "caityavāsin" monks who resided permanently in temples or monasteries.

The "Tenth Wonder" and the Problem of Corruption:

• Jinavallabha's Jeremiad: The chapter opens by referencing Jinavallabha, a prominent sūri (teacher and head of a gaccha/sect) of the Kharatara Gaccha, who expressed deep concern about the state of Jainism in the 11th century. He viewed the situation as so dire that he believed it fulfilled the scriptural prophecy of the "tenth wonder."
• The Tenth Wonder Defined: This tenth wonder signifies a period where honor is given to undisciplined monks who engage in harming life-forms, owning possessions, and practicing unchastity. This prophecy served as a powerful indictment of the prevailing conditions.
• Kharatara Gaccha's Mission: The Kharatara Gaccha emerged in the 11th century in Rajasthan and Gujarat with the explicit aim of reforming these corrupt practices and reviving the scriptural ideal of monastic life. They saw themselves as emulating the jinakalpa (the ideal conduct of the tirthankaras) and distinguished themselves as "forest-dwelling" ascetics, in contrast to the sedentary caityavāsin monks.

The Rise of Caityavāsin Monasticism:

• Critique of Caityavāsins: The Kharataras strongly criticized the caityavāsins for several reasons:
  • Sedentary Lifestyle: They violated the scriptural injunction for a wandering life and temporary lodging.
  • Rule Violations: They failed to observe proper rules for alms-begging and avoiding harm to life-forms.
  • Misappropriation of Funds: They used temple funds and property for their own benefit.
  • Hindu Influence: They adopted rituals and practices with a conspicuous Hindu flavor.
• Jineśvara's Explanation: Jineśvara, an influential disciple of the Kharatara founder, explained the origin of this sedentary lifestyle. He attributed it to a gradual deviation from the wandering life, leading to lay supporters becoming estranged. Faced with a lack of lodging, monks encouraged householders to build temples, promising spiritual rewards for construction and offering services in areas the laity couldn't manage. This created a system where monks lived comfortably in monasteries attached to temples, even if it meant breaking rules regarding begging and causing harm.

The Debate and the Role of Scripture:

• The Debate at Anahillapațṭana: A pivotal event in Kharatara history was the alleged debate in 1024 AD between Jineśvara and a caityavāsin monk named Sūra at Anahillapațṭana. This event is said to have earned Jineśvara the epithet "Kharatara" (particularly quick-witted).
• Sūra's Arguments: The Kharatara accounts, though polemical, reveal Sūra's arguments for temple-dwelling. He contended that the wandering life in the Kaliyuga was fraught with physical and moral dangers, including contact with women. Temples, being inherently pure and built for the tirthankaras, offered a safer and more practical environment for monks. He also argued that without temples, Jainism would cease to exist as the laity had lost interest in maintaining sacred places.
• Jineśvara's Counter-Argument: Jineśvara, through his hagiographies, attempts to discredit Sūra. He links Sūra to the story of Kuvalayaprabha, a scholar who was condemned to endless rebirth for claiming scripture's meaning was fluid and comprised of exceptions. This was used to portray Sūra's defense of the caityavāsins as a corruption of scriptural principles.
• The Significance of Scripture: A key theme in the Kharatara reform was the emphasis on scripture (agama). They portrayed the caityavāsins as ignorant of, misusing, or travestying sacred texts, while the Kharatara sūris' authority stemmed from their adherence to scripture, particularly texts like the Daśavaikālikasūtra. This highlights the contentious nature of scriptural interpretation and canonization within Jainism.

Challenging Kharatara Narratives and Broader Context:

• Counter-Evidence: Dundas points out that the Kharatara accounts are not the sole perspective. Eminent figures like Haribhadra (6th century AD?) and the commentator Abhayadevasūri (11th century) permitted or even saw temple-dwelling and temple building as spiritual sacrifices, challenging the Kharatara view of it as inherently corrupting.
• "Domestication" in Jainism: The chapter draws a parallel with the concept of "domestication" in Theravada Buddhism, as described by M. Carrithers. This refers to a process where a lack of central authority and close lay-monk relationships lead monks to adopt lay values, prioritizing social and ritual service (facilitated by living in monasteries near settlements) over the ideal of the forest-dwelling ascetic.
• The Role of Dāna: Dundas suggests that the widespread building of temples and permanent monastic dwelling can be seen as an extension of dāna (religious giving), particularly the giving of food, clothes, and lodging, which is a fundamental aspect of the monk-lay relationship in Jainism. The text Dānādiprakarana by a monk named Sūra (potentially the same one debated by Jineśvara) emphasizes dāna as the most appropriate religious activity for the Kaliyuga and argues for supporting the sangha, even if individual monks are not perfect. Sūra's perspective highlights the potential for different interpretations of monastic conduct and the importance of compassion in religious giving.
• Loosening of Rules: Dundas notes that scriptural texts like the Niśīthabhāṣya already contained exceptions to the rule of wandering, permitting permanent residence under certain circumstances (inauspiciousness, famine, illness, etc.). While made with good intentions, these relaxations likely provided justification for later temple-dwelling practices that reformers found objectionable.
• The Fluidity of the Canon: The chapter also touches upon the issue of the Jain scriptural canon, noting that the accepted list of forty-five texts was not the only possible grouping. This fluidity in defining scripture could have contributed to differing interpretations of religious behavior.

Conclusion:

The chapter concludes by suggesting that the Kharatara sūris were largely successful in halting the "domestication" of Jainism in Rajasthan and Gujarat. Their success was attributed not only to their charisma and reported miracles but, crucially, to their effective use of scripture to discredit their opponents. The Kharataras positioned themselves as defenders of true scriptural adherence, contrasting with the caityavāsins, whom they accused of distorting sacred texts. This dynamic interplay between scriptural interpretation and monastic practice was a key element in the history of Jainism.