On the life and teachings of Śaṅkarācārya; includes history of Daivadnya Brahmans, Hindu caste in coastal region of Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, and Kerala.

Kundakunda’s handling of several basic ideas cannot be omitted when one deals with the following concepts in Jaina philosophy: 1. Sy_āt/siya, syādvāda_ or _saptabhaṅgī_. 2. _Nayas_, _vyavahāra_ and _niścaya nayas_ and _naya_vāda. 3. _Sapta_ and _Nava tattvas/padārtha_ and 4. _Anekāntavāda_. No doubt his dates are a major conundrum; recent research regards him to have lived around the fourth or fifth centuries (Brill’s Encyclopedia of Jainism, BEJ: Brill’s Encyclopedia of Jainism (Handbook of Oriental Studies. Section 2 South Asia), edited by Knut (...) Jacobsen, John A. Cort, Paul Dundas and Kristi L. Wiley. Leiden | Boston: Brill, 2020., p. 853). Moreover, it has been said that Kundakunda “_thread a somewhat new path on which he virtually remained a lone traveller_”, evident by the fact that hardly, if any, Digambara or even Śvetāmbara scholar elaborates on his ideas, let alone crediting him for significant basic insights into Jaina philosophy. Moreover, it seems to be evident, as will be attempted to show, that some ideas appear to be taken over from Kundakunda. Together with Kundakunda’s ‘legacy’, this article will highlight several conundrums regarding the philosophical impact of several concepts in his works that fortunately have not been relegated to oblivion. (shrink)

The most noticeable difference between the Digambara and Śvetāmbara sects of Jainism is expressed by the very names of these ancient traditions. Śvetāmbara means 'white-clad' and refers to the fact that the ascetics of this tradition wear white garments. Digambara means 'sky-' or 'space-clad' and refers to the fact that the ascetics of this tradition go naked, that is, they wear nothing but the sky. This is considered by both sects to be a critical difference and one that (...) justifies the split between the two. There are other differences between them, including the resistance of the Digambara sect to the idea that women can achieve moksha.1 Moreover, the Digambara reject many of the scriptures of the Śvetāmbara as .. (shrink)

The main concern in this paper is to explore the relationship between Jaina ethics and meditation techniques proposed in the Jaina scriptures and its foundations. Meditative practices have been practiced in Jaina tradition for centuries. We also find a difference between the interpretation of scriptures (especially Digambara and Svetambara) regarding meditation, and it also sometimes gets translated into the practice of meditation. In the case of Jaina tradition, it is challenging to separate ethics from the spiritual path of liberation (...) and meditation as a practice. In this paper, based on Tattvartha Sutra, Uttaradhyayana, and Acaranga Sutra, I have tried to show that ethics in its restricted sense can be seen as only one aspect of meditation, but in its broader sense, the whole spiritual path suggested in the Jaina scriptures can be seen as meditation. The fourteen stages suggested in the Jaina scriptures can be considered the stages of ethical path or meditation. We can see preksha dhyana - a recent form of meditation that translates these stages into more acceptable to the laymen - a popular and simple form of the spiritual path in modern times. Nevertheless, in the end, the ultimate aim remains the same - self-purification through the Karmic cycle. (shrink)

Life and works of Amr̥tacandra, 10th century Digambara Jaina leader, with special reference to his Puruṣārthasiddhyupāya, Sanskrit work on Jaina ethics.

Jaina authors use a pluralistic epistemological model as a tool to claim the superiority of Jainism over the other schools of Indian thought. In this article the general tendency of the Jaina’s epistemic pluralism is discussed and it is shown how the Digambara Jaina Vidyānandin tries to establish the Jainas’ pluralism on rational grounds by identifying erroneous epistemic alternatives through methodological falsification.

Classical commentary, with Hindi explanation on Parīkṣāmukha of Māṇikyanandī, 8th cent., treatise on Indian logic (Nyaya), according to the Jaina Digambara sect; includes original text.

Two eight-century Jaina contemporaries, a Śvetāmbara philosopher Siddhasena Mahāmati and a Digambara Akalaṅka Bhaṭṭa revolutionised Jaina epistemology, by radically transforming basic epistemological concepts, which had been based on canonical tradition. The paper presents a brief historical outline of the developments of basic epistemological concepts in Jaina philolosophy such as the cognitive criterion and logical faculties as well as their fourteen typological models which serve as the backdrop of important innovations in epistemology introduced by Siddhasena, Pātrasvāmin and Akalaṅka. An important (...) contribution of these Jaina thinkers was to economize Indian logic and the rules of inference, first, by devising only one kind of logical reason called ‘inexplicability otherwise’, based on the single inseparable connection of the proving property with the inferable property, and, second, by limiting the necessary number of the members of the proof formula merely to two. These two innovations were related to the thinkers’ intention to devise a logic which would not primarily be based on empirical verification but its structural patterns would be valid irrespective of external observation. Further, the paper focuses on the nature of the epistemological shifts which Siddhasena and Akalaṅka introduced independently of each other and on the question how Siddhasena’s and Akalaṅka’s ideas were partly anchored in Buddhist concepts of the pramāṇa school of Diṅnāga and Dharmakīrti. With the Buddhist background, Siddhasena sought to define the criteria essential to distinguish true from false cognitions and to provide a novel classification of the pramāṇas. He can further be accredited with formulating the first Jaina descriptive definition of the cognitive criterion. The final section of the paper explains how Akalaṅka applies novel epistemological ideas, first, to construct realistic ontology and objectivity of both the external world and the cognising subject, and, secondly, to combat fundamental Buddhist concepts such as idealism and momentariness. (shrink)

Interpretive study of the theory of evolution in a fixed sequence (kramabaddhaparyāya), propounded by Kānajī Svāmī, b. 1890, an exponent of Digambara Jainism.

Complete works of Kundakunda, 2nd century exponent of the Digambara sect in Jainism; Prakrit text with Hindi translation.

On the Jain philosophy of human action; a portion of the author's Chakkhaṇḍāgama (Ṣaṭkhaṇḍāgama), religious work of the Digambara school ; translated from Hindi edition to English.

Several religious traditions of South Asia understand that mental activities produce colors (leśyās) that are associated with the mind or with the soul itself. In Jain texts, there are three theories about how leśyās are produced: that leśyās are a product (parināma) (1) of the passions (kasāyas), (2) of vibrations of the soul (yoga), and (3) of all eight varieties of karmas. The views of various Śvetāmbara and Digambara commentators regarding leśyās are compared.

Assigning a date to Kumārila is notoriously difficult. Kumārila’s dates are usually assigned through a relative chronology of Brahmanical and Buddhist philosophers with whom Kumārila engages or is engaged. This is a precarious method because the dates of these interlocutors are equally unstable. But what if in considering systematic dialogues (_śāstra_) to be the primary medium for interreligious philosophical debate we have missed a source that does engage with Kumārila, and that can be reliably dated? In this article, I turn (...) to a religious group whom, it has been previously thought, did not respond to Kumārila until the eighth century—Jainas—as well as to a genre that is not typically viewed as a site of systematic philosophical dialogue—narrative. I argue that the _Padmacarita_, a Jaina Rāmāyaṇa composed by a Digambara writer called Raviṣeṇa, contains a narrative refutation of Kumārila’s commentary to _Mīmāṃsāsūtra_ 1.1.2. By bringing to light this refutation, and explaining how Raviṣeṇa’s _Padmacarita_ can be reliably dated, I assign Kumārila’s _terminus ante quem_ to the date of the _Padmacarita_’s composition, 676 CE. Finally, I suggest that Raviṣeṇa’s _Padmacarita_ is the earliest extant Jaina text to discuss Kumārila’s claims, and that Jainas used narrative to reflect on Mīmāṃsā before they turned to _śāstra_ as another medium for this dialogue. (shrink)

Study on the life and philosophy of Kundakunda, 2nd cent. Jaina exponent and his works.