Article: Sects

Digambara monks and novices
Image by Takeo Kimiya © Takeo Kimiya

Today full-fledged Digambara mendicants – munis – are scarce. Continuing the ancient tradition of a senior monk’s attracting pupils, the monks tend to gather followers. These are usually junior monks, novices and lay people. Digambara mendicants ‘seem to have an especially weak sense of standard training, of a line of pupillary succession, or of allegiance to an order’ (Carrithers 1989: 230). Instead, there is greater emphasis on the charismatic leadership of individual mendicants who are able to influence the lay communities.

In the past the situation was probably similar in terms of the significance of individual leaders. However, when there were more Digambara mendicants it seems to have been much more complicated. Dundas (2002: 121) has rightly noted ‘the complexity of medieval Digambara ascetic organisation in which a plethora of sects and subsects, many of them totally obscure to us today, emerged on the basis of preceptorial association and geographical connection with particular regions and towns’.

This intricate picture of the Digambara tradition is increased by the fact that, besides monastic lineages, there are regional lineages of the bhaṭṭārakas. These are based on seats of power in particular places. The establishment of a bhaṭṭāraka in certain areas has contributed to the survival of Digambara Jainism.

Information on historical and contemporary monastic lineages is hard to come by. Early lineages seem to have faded, with the present Digambara monastic community tracing its origins to the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Of the six groups around at that time, only three are now present in contemporary India (Flügel 2006: 350). These are:

• Śānti Sāgar ‘Dakṣiṇ’
• Śānti Sāgar ‘Chāṇī’
• Muni Ādi Sgar ‘Ankalīkar’.

These statistics of Digambara mendicants are based on information on page 355 of Flügel 2006.

Five of Mahāvīra’s disciples
Image by Wellcome Trust Library © Wellcome Library, London

The main evidence for the origin of Śvetāmbara mendicant lineages is the Sthavirāvalī, which forms the second part of the Kalpa-sūtra, a holy text. It is meant to reflect the situation at the time of Mahāvīra, the 24th Jina. His direct disciples were the eleven gaṇa-dharas, who were the heads of nine mendicant groups – gaṇas. The difference in number comes from the fact that two groups were managed by two gaṇa-dharas at the same time.

The only one of Mahāvīra’s disciples who founded a monastic succession is Ārya Sudharman. All the later Śvetāmbara sectarian traditions claim descent from him except one, the Upakeśa-gaccha. This group claims descent from the 23rd Jina, Pārśvanātha or Lord Pārśva.

The Sthavirāvalī continues the list of successive teachers who claim a common mendicant ancestor. The last one mentioned is Devarddhi Kṣamāśramaṇa, the teacher who organised the writing down of the holy scriptures in the 5th century CE at Valabhī, in Gujarat.

On the other hand, later records concerned precisely with the writing down of the holy scriptures show that two distinct recitations existed. These were associated respectively with the towns of Mathurā and Valabhī. This means that there was some sort of division and disagreement between two schools even at this stage.

From the 11th to 12th century onwards, quite a number of subsects emerged. This ferment was probably linked to the issue of image worship, which became crucial in the late medieval period, causing a major split. The labels that are mostly used nowadays to distinguish among the subsects of Śvetāmbara Jains go back to this relatively late period. They are:

• Mūrti-pūjak
• Sthānaka-vāsin
• Terāpanthin.

Although there are key points of agreements among all the Śvetāmbara sectarian traditions, there are several areas of dispute.

The Śvetāmbara sects agree on the:

• authority of the Śvetāmbara canonical scriptures
• claims of monastic descent from Sudharman, except for the Upakeśa-gaccha
• white monastic robes of monks and nuns.

The main cause of the schisms is the correctness of worshipping images. The largest sect, the Mūrti-pūjaks, worship images whereas the Sthānaka-vāsin and Terāpanthin Jains do not. There are also other matters of disagreement, which have probably arisen over time partly as a way of distinguishing the sects from each other.

Other areas where the sects differ relate to the daily liturgy and recitation of prayers and to the religious calendar.

Celebrating the installation of an idol
Image by Chandu Shah © Chandu Shah

The largest sect is the Mūrti-pūjaka, which means ‘worshipper of images’ in Sanskrit, referring to images of the Jinas. Synonyms are the modern Indian words Derāvāsī – which literally means ‘staying in temples’ – and Mandir Mārgī – ‘temple-followers’. The Mūrti-pūjaks can be categorised into several subsects – gacchas:

• Tapā-gaccha
• Añcala-gaccha
• Kharatara-gaccha
• Pūrṇimā-gaccha
• Pārśvacandra-gaccha
• Vimala-gaccha
• Tristuti-gaccha.

Such terms have to be understood in contrast with the Sthānaka-vāsins, who reject image worship. This explains why these terms became common when the latter came into formal existence, between the 15th and 17th centuries.

Śvetāmbara Sthānaka-vāsin or Terā-panthin nuns
Image by arjunstc – Arjun © CC BY-NC-ND 3.0

Developing from the lay tradition established by the lay man Lonkā Śāh in the 15th century, the Sthānaka-vāsins reject the worship of images. Instead of temples the centre of public worship is the mendicant dwelling-hall. Meaning ‘hall-dweller’ in Sanskrit, ‘Sthānaka-vāsin’ seems to have become a common term only in the early 20th century.

Founded by a Sthānaka-vāsin monk who left his order, the Terāpanthins also do not believe that image worship is correct. Ācārya Bhikṣu established it in the 19th century, along with 12 other monks. The sect gets its name from this fact, because the Hindi term terāpantha or terahpantha means either ‘your path’ or ‘path of 13’.

Monks preach to lay men
Image by British Library © CC0 1.0 (Creative Commons Public Domain)

In the course of history, a new sect has commonly been generated after a new mendicant order has developed. However, a number of traditions that have arisen among both Śvetāmbaras and Digambaras have been established among lay communities. Some of them were created by lay men who were not ordinary householders but who were also deliberately not fully initiated monks. Others were founded by mendicants but without giving birth to monastic lineages.

Comparatively recent religious movements that do not fit easily into the customary two-sect model have expanded rapidly. These may reflect changes within the wider Jain community, as increasing numbers of Jains settle outside India.

Shrimad Rajchandra temple
Image by Ravin Mehta © Ravin Mehta

The more recent religious movements that have arisen among the laity have no formal sectarian affiliation. Both setting great emphasis on the practise of asceticism and focusing on developing the soul, these groups sit outside the ages-old divisions of Digambara and Śvetāmbara.

These two non-sectarian movements seem especially attractive to the diaspora, perhaps suggesting that a broader Jain identity is more appealing than a traditional sectarian one for many contemporary Jains, above all those outside India who may face particular challenges.

Two major examples are the movement associated with Rājacandra and the Kānjī-svāmī-panth.

Nude monks carrying cloths
Image by Brooklyn Museum © CC-BY-NC

There is little clear evidence of this sect. With its origins and decline uncertain, it has a complicated history, which scholars have painstakingly begun to reconstruct. Even so, the meaning of yāpanīya is not fully clear. But it is apparent that it stresses the practice of restraint and has nothing to do with external appearance, as ‘śvetāmbara’ and ‘digambara’ do.

Yāpanīyas could have been active in the period of the mid-second century BCE to the third century CE. One item of possible evidence is the Mathurā votive tablets depicting monks wearing a piece of cloth on their forearms to hide their nudity. However, these mendicants could be Digambara monks trying to accommodate the feelings of non-Jains who are hostile towards public nudity.

There is inscriptional evidence of Yāpanīyas between the 5th and 15th centuries, mainly in Karnataka, where they seem to have had influence.

References in Jain texts also show that they were active in intellectual life during part of this period.

At least one author can be identified as having belonged to the Yāpanīyas. Writing in the ninth century, Ācārya Śakaṭāyana authored two works on major topics of dispute between the Digambaras and Śvetāmbaras. These are:

• Treatise on Women’s Emancipation – Strī-nirvāṇa-prakaraṇa (Jaini 1991)
• Treatise on Food Consumption by the Omniscient – Kevali-bhukti-prakaraṇa.

These texts show that their doctrinal position stood between Śvetāmbaras and Digambaras on key subjects of disagreement. For instance, Śakaṭāyana does not consider that nudity is a requirement for liberation and holds that women can be liberated. On these two matters, they seem to have been closer to the Śvetāmbara view.

The Yāpanīyas seem to have disappeared after the 15th century and merged with the Digambaras.