DHARMA IN JAINISM – A PRELIMINARY SURVEY
Throughout the history of Jain religious and philosophic thought, the vital concept of dharma has been subject to extensive elaboration and taken on a plurality of meanings. These include its pan-Indian simplification into something approximating the imported Western concept of ‘religion’.1 Within the Jain tradition, serious discussion regarding the broader issue of dharma began in earnest during the first centuries of the common era. It was around this time that Jain writers began creating Sanskrit treatises to communicate their views to geographically wide-spread and doctrinally separated congregations, as well as to ideological opponents. From the earliest Sanskrit texts onward, the word dharma has been used to indicate the Jain teaching in general. This, in fact, appears to be the most frequent use of the term. Another early denotation, as affirmed in the writings of the late canonical period (200–300 CE), is the uniquely Jain ontological category of dharma as ‘motion’, with its opposite, adharma, signifying ‘rest’. This article concentrates on the explication of three related denotations of the word dharma, parts of which were gradually synthesized into one more or less integrated theological view. Since these various notions of dharma appear to have played a major historical role in shaping Jain belief and practice, understanding them should enhance our overall understanding of the general development of the Jain tradition. The first of these denotations identifies dharma with an ethics related to the religious and social behaviour of the lay person, on one hand, and the mendicant, on the other. The second identifies the conception of dharma as being somehow linked with the conception of the eternal self (j ıva), thus locating dharma squarely in the transcendental sphere. Over the course of the medieval period (400–1200 CE), these two denotations were synthesized to form a definition of correct conduct as behaviour in keeping with one’s intrinsic nature or essential self (svabhava ). On the basis of this definition, dharma was understood as ‘twofold’, incorporating both the idea of behaviour that accords with moral rules and virtues (pravr:ttidharma) and the idea of behaviour that accords with one’s intrinsic nature (nivr:ttidharma). Towards the end of this period, dharma obtained yet an additional meaning: that of a universal order governing all activity in the cosmos. The occurrence of these conceptual developments can be properly appreciated only in light of the continuous encounter between the Jain tradition and the surrounding religious environments that existed in India at the time. For example, the notion of dharma as virtuous behaviour is known to have been influenced by elements of Br ahman: ical social ideology, as expressed in the Dharmasastras . And the conceptions of dharma as behaviour in accord with one’s intrinsic nature, dharma as ‘twofold’, and dharma as cosmic order were influenced by Jainism’s interaction with Br ahman: ical philosophy.2 It should be remembered, however, that Jain pundits were careful to incorporate new materials – terminologies, ideas, organizing principles, etc. – in a manner that preserved the fundamental elements of Jain teachings.3 Despite the obvious influence of these conceptions of dharma on the development of Jain thought, one rarely finds more than a passing reference to ‘dharma’ in the scholarly literature on Jainism. This striking omission is likely due to the fact that the term’s semantic development is somewhat difficult to trace and contextualize. The following brief remarks may be regarded as a beginning exploration of this important topic. Hopefully, however, they will serve as a source of inspiration for more comprehensive studies in the future.
From the beginning of the early canonical period, as evidenced in the Ac ar a ngas _ utra and Sutrakr :ta ngas _ utra , the term dharma has been employed as a designation for the Jain teaching as a whole.4 Gradually, a more specific understanding of dharma emerged during the first centuries of the common era in treatises such as the Tattvar- thasutra of Um asv ati and the Pravacanasara of Kundakunda (150– 350 CE).6 In the Tattvarthas utra , the first Jain text penned in Sanskrit and the earliest systematization of the canonical teachings, dharma was defined as ‘the highest forbearance, modesty, uprightness, purity, truthfulness, restraint, austerity, renunciation, non-attachment, and continence’.7 The word dharma was thus employed to designate ten constituents of righteous character which closely paralleled the five vows (mahavrata ) 8 that have formed the basis of Jain ethics since early canonical times: non-harm (ahim: sa ), truthfulness (satya), honesty (asteya), continence (brahmacarya) and propertylessness (aparigraha).9 Both the Tattvarthas utra and the Pravacanasara 10 emphasize the necessity of adopting a particular state of mind as a basis for moral conduct. This tenfold dharma or morality, in which meditation on Jain doctrine (dharmadhyana ) 11 features as an item of austere practice (tapas), was considered instrumental in the cultivation of virtuous behaviour (samyakcaritra ), one of three facets said to form the path of liberation (moks:amarga ).12 During the following centuries, dharma, conceived as virtuous behaviour, acquired additional meanings which were decisive for the future of the Jain tradition. These new meanings arose primarily as result of the transformation of Jainism into a full fledged religious community with a ‘four-fold congregation’ of monks, nuns, laymen and laywomen; and, a complex ritual structure that included a layoriented temple cult.13 However, as mentioned above, one must not underestimate the significant influence of Br ahman: ical culture on the development and application of dharmic principles in Jain society. The remainder of this section mentions but a few important outcomes of this influence. The first and perhaps the most profound outcome of the processes of ‘Brahmanization’ and communal transformation was the creation in Jain society of two separate dharmas or moral prescriptions: one for the lay person (sr avakadharma ), and one for the mendicant (yatidharma). The regulations governing the daily lives of lay persons, for example, were systematized in a number of treatises written during the medieval period. These texts, termed sr avak ac ara 14 by the Svet ambara tradition and upasak adhy ayana by the Digambara tradition, clearly evinced a strong influence of Br ahman: ical social ideology as expressed in the Dharmasastras . Reaching the Digambara tradition first,15 the effect was to extend the lay person’s dharma to include ‘local customs’ (desac ara ) in the form of central Hindu doctrines and ritual practices. Thus the primary characteristic of the process of Brahmanization involved the imposition of an increasingly detailed body of regulations over the lay person’s life. These included ritual and social duties respecting gender, age, occupation, hygiene, diet, religious vows, etc. Among the Digambaras, integration with Br ahman: ical society found early expression in the 9th century Adipur an : a of Jinasena. This text contains, among other things, Jain renderings of the varn: a srama system as well as rites (kriya ) modelled on, and to some extent corresponding with, the Hindu sam: skaras . 16 In addition, both the Digambara and Svet ambara traditions adopted the concept of purus:artha , 17 as well as a Tantric meditative practice, most likely stemming from Trika Saivism.
The conception of material existence as being comprised of five or six fundamental substances or dravyas – the eternal self (j ıva), principles of motion (dharma) and rest (adharma),19 atoms (pudgala), space (ak a sa ) and time (kala ) – developed over a period of time beginning with the Ac ar a ngas _ utra . 20 Contributing to this development, philosophers such as Kundakunda introduced as a systematic doctrine the idea that an intrinsic nature adhered to each of these ontological categories, which together were instrumental in forming the Jain cosmos via their infinite modes. In the Pravacanasara , dravya is defined as: That which, whilst it does not forsake its innate nature, is connected with creation, maintenance and destruction and which possesses qualities and modifications, they call a substance.21 Among these basic substances, the substance known as self or j ıva was obviously of prime significance when it came to defining and legitimizing correct behaviour. Commenting on Kundakunda’s defi- nition of dharma as conduct (carittam: khalu dhammo),22 Amr:tacandra states: Conduct is behaving according to one’s nature; activity obeying one’s (innate) laws. And this from being the nature of things is dharma (duty); it means the manifestation of pure intelligence.23 Human performance in harmony with one’s innate nature constitutes, according to Amr:tacandra, the supreme dharma (paramadharma),24 because it consists in activity grounded in the self (j ıva) and thus leads to liberation (moks:a).25 Amr:tacandra’s analysis presupposes a conception of dharma as being an internal reality closely related to the self and, in some contexts, completely identified with it.26 This understanding of dharma, as expressed by Kundakunda and Amr:tacandra (1964), was also emphasized by other Jain thinkers and featured prominently in the Jain confrontation with M ımam : sa philosophy on the possibility of obtaining a direct perception of dharma. In the Sastrav art asamuccaya , for example, the 8th century Jain philosopher Haribhadra claimed that man could obtain a direct experience of dharma purely by means of the self. Here dharma, while conceived as residing beyond the range of the senses (at ındriya), was simultaneously conceived as being accessible through the attainment of an omniscient state (sarvajnatva ~ ).27 Haribhadra thus argued that an action – moral, ritual or social – need not be legitimized solely on the grounds that it accords with the teaching revealed by an omniscient T rthankara. In Jain teachings, the grounds for an action may _ be justified rationally by reference to one’s innate nature as well.
In the same Sastrav art asamuccaya , Haribhadra describes appropriate behaviour or dharma in terms of two antithetical yet interconnected formulations: (1) behaviour characterized by activity (pravr:tti), resulting in merit (pun: ya) and enjoyment (bhoga); and, (2) behaviour characterized by non-activity (nivr:tti), resulting in liberation (mukti).28 Dharma characterized by activity leads to enjoyment; characterized by its opposite, it leads to liberation.29 This conception of dharma exemplifies the historically significant tendency to incorporate the notions of ‘renunciation’ and ‘liberation’ to broaden the definition of dharma so as to enable the regulation and legitimization of detachment from more social and goal-oriented norms and rules.30 In Haribhadra’s synthesis, dharma viewed as behaviour that accords with moral rules and virtues, and dharma viewed as behaviour that accords with one’s intrinsic nature were conceived as two aspects of one dharma – pravr:tti and nivr:tti. In other words, rather than regarding these two paths as separate and distinct, they were treated as coexisting phases of religious life – one involving the path of mundane morality (karma) and the other involving the cultivation of higher knowledge (jn~ana ). These coexisting phases were conceived hierarchically according to degrees of purity (asubha– subha– visuddha ). In terms of pravr:ttidharma one was enjoined to cultivate pun: ya or subha (e.g., non-violence, tolerance and kindness) and refrain from papa or asubha (e.g., anger, pride and greed). The aim was to maintain oneself in an auspicious state (subha ) in order to attain an elevated birth in the next life. Nivr:ttidharma, on the other hand, involved, among other things, the practice of austerity and the cultivation of higher knowledge leading to detachment. Here the aim was to enter a state of perfect purity (visuddha) , transcending both good and bad activity, in order to attain ultimate liberation from the world of birth and death (vimukti).
At the close of the medieval period, Jainism came to embrace the notion of dharma as a universal or cosmic order. This universal order was said to consist of uncreated, eternal and impersonal laws – laws that constituted the intrinsic nature of each phenomenon, and which determined the activity of all that existed. In this view, everything was subject to this cosmic order as well as the laws that governed its functioning. One of the most conspicuous differences between the Jain notion of a cosmic order and that of the surrounding Br ahman: ical tradition, was that the Jain cosmic order rested upon an ontological plurality (the dravyas mentioned above) whereas the Br ahman: ical cosmic order rested upon a single underlying principle (e.g., the universal self, Brahman, and so forth). As to why this was the case, little is known since research has yet to be conducted on this fascinating topic. The fact remains that the Jain cosmos was comprised of j ıva, dharma, adharma, pudgala, ak a sa and kala , with each substance having its own distinct svabhava and its own specific governing rules. There was no one principle that served as the governing factor for them all. The following quotation is from the fourth chapter of the 12th century Jain classic, Yogasastra . In this rare Sanskrit rendering, Hemacandra portrays a universal cosmic order using many of the meanings of dharma discussed above: ‘The eminent Jinas, who are venerable, have convincingly proclaimed a teaching (dharma) which, if understood correctly, saves one from drowning in the ocean of transmigration [and thereby from the fear of being thrown into hell]. (92) This [dharma] is tenfold, [consisting of] restraint, truthfulness, purity, continence, non-attachment, austerity, forbearance, modesty, uprightness and renunciation. (93) Due to the impact of dharma, which is similar to a wish-fulfilling tree, all desires are fulfilled. For those who are established in the condition of adharma [this fulfilling of desires] does not occur. (94) ‘The fact that the ocean does not submerge the earth, [and the fact that] the [rain] clouds give life to the earth, that is unquestionably [due to] the absolute power of dharma. (96) The fact that fire does not burn horizontally and that the wind does not blow vertically, this is the incomprehensible grandeur [of the nature of things and] dharma alone is the cause [of it]. (97) The earth has neither a support [nor] a supporter, [such as Ses :a, Kurma, Var aha or the dikku njaras], [and ~ yet] it is the foundation of everything [moving and unmoving]. Furthermore, the fact that it [still] remains [shows that] there is no other reason [for it] than dharma. (98) The sun and the moon, which are for the benefit of mankind, definitely arise in this world by command of dharma. (99) ‘Dharma [alone] protects the Self from falling into the pits of hell. Dharma alone bestows the incomparable wealth of omniscience.
From the beginning of the early canonical period, as evidenced in the Ac ar a ngas _ utra and Sutrakr :ta ngas _ utra , the term dharma has been employed as a designation for the Jain teaching as a whole.4 Gradually, a more specific understanding of dharma emerged during the first centuries of the common era in treatises such as the Tattvar- thasutra of Um asv ati and the Pravacanasara of Kundakunda (150– 350 CE).6 In the Tattvarthas utra , the first Jain text penned in Sanskrit and the earliest systematization of the canonical teachings, dharma was defined as ‘the highest forbearance, modesty, uprightness, purity, truthfulness, restraint, austerity, renunciation, non-attachment, and continence’.7 The word dharma was thus employed to designate ten constituents of righteous character which closely paralleled the five vows (mahavrata ) 8 that have formed the basis of Jain ethics since early canonical times: non-harm (ahim: sa ), truthfulness (satya), honesty (asteya), continence (brahmacarya) and propertylessness (aparigraha).9 Both the Tattvarthas utra and the Pravacanasara 10 emphasize the necessity of adopting a particular state of mind as a basis for moral conduct. This tenfold dharma or morality, in which meditation on Jain doctrine (dharmadhyana ) 11 features as an item of austere practice (tapas), was considered instrumental in the cultivation of virtuous behaviour (samyakcaritra ), one of three facets said to form the path of liberation (moks:amarga ).12 During the following centuries, dharma, conceived as virtuous behaviour, acquired additional meanings which were decisive for the future of the Jain tradition. These new meanings arose primarily as result of the transformation of Jainism into a full fledged religious community with a ‘four-fold congregation’ of monks, nuns, laymen and laywomen; and, a complex ritual structure that included a layoriented temple cult.13 However, as mentioned above, one must not underestimate the significant influence of Br ahman: ical culture on the development and application of dharmic principles in Jain society. The remainder of this section mentions but a few important outcomes of this influence. The first and perhaps the most profound outcome of the processes of ‘Brahmanization’ and communal transformation was the creation in Jain society of two separate dharmas or moral prescriptions: one for the lay person (sr avakadharma ), and one for the mendicant (yatidharma). The regulations governing the daily lives of lay persons, for example, were systematized in a number of treatises written during the medieval period. These texts, termed sr avak ac ara 14 by the Svet ambara tradition and upasak adhy ayana by the Digambara tradition, clearly evinced a strong influence of Br ahman: ical social ideology as expressed in the Dharmasastras . Reaching the Digambara tradition first,15 the effect was to extend the lay person’s dharma to include ‘local customs’ (desac ara ) in the form of central Hindu doctrines and ritual practices. Thus the primary characteristic of the process of Brahmanization involved the imposition of an increasingly detailed body of regulations over the lay person’s life. These included ritual and social duties respecting gender, age, occupation, hygiene, diet, religious vows, etc. Among the Digambaras, integration with Br ahman: ical society found early expression in the 9th century Adipur an : a of Jinasena. This text contains, among other things, Jain renderings of the varn: a srama system as well as rites (kriya ) modelled on, and to some extent corresponding with, the Hindu sam: skaras . 16 In addition, both the Digambara and Svet ambara traditions adopted the concept of purus:artha , 17 as well as a Tantric meditative practice, most likely stemming from Trika Saivism.
The conception of material existence as being comprised of five or six fundamental substances or dravyas – the eternal self (j ıva), principles of motion (dharma) and rest (adharma),19 atoms (pudgala), space (ak a sa ) and time (kala ) – developed over a period of time beginning with the Ac ar a ngas _ utra . 20 Contributing to this development, philosophers such as Kundakunda introduced as a systematic doctrine the idea that an intrinsic nature adhered to each of these ontological categories, which together were instrumental in forming the Jain cosmos via their infinite modes. In the Pravacanasara , dravya is defined as: That which, whilst it does not forsake its innate nature, is connected with creation, maintenance and destruction and which possesses qualities and modifications, they call a substance.21 Among these basic substances, the substance known as self or j ıva was obviously of prime significance when it came to defining and legitimizing correct behaviour. Commenting on Kundakunda’s defi- nition of dharma as conduct (carittam: khalu dhammo),22 Amr:tacandra states: Conduct is behaving according to one’s nature; activity obeying one’s (innate) laws. And this from being the nature of things is dharma (duty); it means the manifestation of pure intelligence.23 Human performance in harmony with one’s innate nature constitutes, according to Amr:tacandra, the supreme dharma (paramadharma),24 because it consists in activity grounded in the self (j ıva) and thus leads to liberation (moks:a).25 Amr:tacandra’s analysis presupposes a conception of dharma as being an internal reality closely related to the self and, in some contexts, completely identified with it.26 This understanding of dharma, as expressed by Kundakunda and Amr:tacandra (1964), was also emphasized by other Jain thinkers and featured prominently in the Jain confrontation with M ımam : sa philosophy on the possibility of obtaining a direct perception of dharma. In the Sastrav art asamuccaya , for example, the 8th century Jain philosopher Haribhadra claimed that man could obtain a direct experience of dharma purely by means of the self. Here dharma, while conceived as residing beyond the range of the senses (at ındriya), was simultaneously conceived as being accessible through the attainment of an omniscient state (sarvajnatva ~ ).27 Haribhadra thus argued that an action – moral, ritual or social – need not be legitimized solely on the grounds that it accords with the teaching revealed by an omniscient T rthankara. In Jain teachings, the grounds for an action may _ be justified rationally by reference to one’s innate nature as well.
In the same Sastrav art asamuccaya , Haribhadra describes appropriate behaviour or dharma in terms of two antithetical yet interconnected formulations: (1) behaviour characterized by activity (pravr:tti), resulting in merit (pun: ya) and enjoyment (bhoga); and, (2) behaviour characterized by non-activity (nivr:tti), resulting in liberation (mukti).28 Dharma characterized by activity leads to enjoyment; characterized by its opposite, it leads to liberation.29 This conception of dharma exemplifies the historically significant tendency to incorporate the notions of ‘renunciation’ and ‘liberation’ to broaden the definition of dharma so as to enable the regulation and legitimization of detachment from more social and goal-oriented norms and rules.30 In Haribhadra’s synthesis, dharma viewed as behaviour that accords with moral rules and virtues, and dharma viewed as behaviour that accords with one’s intrinsic nature were conceived as two aspects of one dharma – pravr:tti and nivr:tti. In other words, rather than regarding these two paths as separate and distinct, they were treated as coexisting phases of religious life – one involving the path of mundane morality (karma) and the other involving the cultivation of higher knowledge (jn~ana ). These coexisting phases were conceived hierarchically according to degrees of purity (asubha– subha– visuddha ). In terms of pravr:ttidharma one was enjoined to cultivate pun: ya or subha (e.g., non-violence, tolerance and kindness) and refrain from papa or asubha (e.g., anger, pride and greed). The aim was to maintain oneself in an auspicious state (subha ) in order to attain an elevated birth in the next life. Nivr:ttidharma, on the other hand, involved, among other things, the practice of austerity and the cultivation of higher knowledge leading to detachment. Here the aim was to enter a state of perfect purity (visuddha) , transcending both good and bad activity, in order to attain ultimate liberation from the world of birth and death (vimukti).
At the close of the medieval period, Jainism came to embrace the notion of dharma as a universal or cosmic order. This universal order was said to consist of uncreated, eternal and impersonal laws – laws that constituted the intrinsic nature of each phenomenon, and which determined the activity of all that existed. In this view, everything was subject to this cosmic order as well as the laws that governed its functioning. One of the most conspicuous differences between the Jain notion of a cosmic order and that of the surrounding Br ahman: ical tradition, was that the Jain cosmic order rested upon an ontological plurality (the dravyas mentioned above) whereas the Br ahman: ical cosmic order rested upon a single underlying principle (e.g., the universal self, Brahman, and so forth). As to why this was the case, little is known since research has yet to be conducted on this fascinating topic. The fact remains that the Jain cosmos was comprised of j ıva, dharma, adharma, pudgala, ak a sa and kala , with each substance having its own distinct svabhava and its own specific governing rules. There was no one principle that served as the governing factor for them all. The following quotation is from the fourth chapter of the 12th century Jain classic, Yogasastra . In this rare Sanskrit rendering, Hemacandra portrays a universal cosmic order using many of the meanings of dharma discussed above: ‘The eminent Jinas, who are venerable, have convincingly proclaimed a teaching (dharma) which, if understood correctly, saves one from drowning in the ocean of transmigration [and thereby from the fear of being thrown into hell]. (92) This [dharma] is tenfold, [consisting of] restraint, truthfulness, purity, continence, non-attachment, austerity, forbearance, modesty, uprightness and renunciation. (93) Due to the impact of dharma, which is similar to a wish-fulfilling tree, all desires are fulfilled. For those who are established in the condition of adharma [this fulfilling of desires] does not occur. (94) ‘The fact that the ocean does not submerge the earth, [and the fact that] the [rain] clouds give life to the earth, that is unquestionably [due to] the absolute power of dharma. (96) The fact that fire does not burn horizontally and that the wind does not blow vertically, this is the incomprehensible grandeur [of the nature of things and] dharma alone is the cause [of it]. (97) The earth has neither a support [nor] a supporter, [such as Ses :a, Kurma, Var aha or the dikku njaras], [and ~ yet] it is the foundation of everything [moving and unmoving]. Furthermore, the fact that it [still] remains [shows that] there is no other reason [for it] than dharma. (98) The sun and the moon, which are for the benefit of mankind, definitely arise in this world by command of dharma. (99) ‘Dharma [alone] protects the Self from falling into the pits of hell. Dharma alone bestows the incomparable wealth of omniscience.
Comments
Post a Comment