[INDOLOGY] New Publications of the Centre of Jaina Studies

Peter Flugel pf8 at soas.ac.uk
Mon Jul 13 20:29:29 UTC 2015

*Jaina Scriptures and Philosophy*. Ed. P. Flügel & O. Ovarnström. London:
Routledge, 2015 (Routledge Advances in Jaina Studies 4).

Jain Perceptions of Nāth and Haṭha Yogīs in Pre-Colonial North India

*Author:* John E. Cort

*Year:* 2015

International Journal of Jaina Studies (Online) Vol. 11, No. 4 (2015) 1-22

Toward the end of the Banārsī Vilās, the “collected works” of Banārsīdās
(1586-1643) that was compiled by his colleague Jagjīvanrām in 1644, there
is a curious seven-caupāī composition entitled Gorakhnāth ke Vacan, or “The
Sayings of Gorakhnāth.” The text, which may or may not have been authored
by Banārsīdās, but at the very least provides us with a Jain reception of
 Gorakhnāth’s teachings, gives a very favorable short summary of them. To
the best of my knowledge, no scholarly attention has been focused on this
text. Scholars of Banārsīdās at best simply mention it in passing.
Scholars of Gorakhnāth, and the Nāths seem largely to be ignorant of the
text. A century later, in his Mokṣa-mārg Prakāśak, the Jaipur-based
Terāpanth ideologue Ṭoḍarmal (ca. 1719/20-1766/67) included a discussion of
the practices of Haṭha Yogīs, who most likely were Rāmānandīs.  His
comments were harshly critical of these false practices. Neither account of
these “Hindu” Yogic practitioners of early modern north India is
sufficiently extensive or detailed to provide useful contemporary evidence
of the details of the practices of these Yogic groups. They do, however,
show us two very different responses to the problem of religious diversity.
While Banārsīdās affirms the superiority of the Jain teachings in other
texts, the inclusion of Gorakhnāth ke Vacan in his Banārsī Vilās shows that
he was a curious spiritual seeker, who could find value in non-Jain
practices and ideas. Ṭoḍarmal, on the other hand, was a staunch ideologue,
who exalted the Jain doctrines and denigrated all others.
Download File (pdf; 151kb)
The Taste of the Mango: A Jaina-Buddhist Controversy on Evidence

*Author:* Marie-Hélène Gorisse

*Year:* 2015

International Journal of Jaina Studies (Online) Vol. 11, No. 3 (2015) 1-19

In the classical framework of Indian philosophy, the different schools of
thought agree on the fact that the correctness of an inference relies on a
special necessary relation standing between the evidence-property and the
target-property. In this framework, there is a controversy between Buddhist
and Jain philosophers concerning the marks of this necessary relation,
named the “invariable concomitance”. More precisely, whereas the Buddhist
philosopher Dharmakīrti holds that only two types of inferential evidence,
namely natural property and effect, can ensure that inferential reasoning
relies upon an invariable concomitance, the Jain Māṇikyanandi claims that
there are no less than six situations in which the presence of an
invariable concomitance is unquestionable, namely when the
evidence-property is pervaded by the target-property, or when it is its
effect, its cause, its predecessor, its successor or its co-existent. In
this line, the typical answer from the Buddhist side is to show that any
evidence other than natural property and effect can in fact be traceable to
one of them. Contrarily, the Jain strategy is to show that natural property
and effect are not sufficient in order to give a correct account of the
diversity of correct inferences. The aim of this paper is to give a
presentation of these discrepancies between the Jain and the Buddhist
theories of inference, as they are found in Māṇikyanandi’s Parīkṣāmukham,
the Introduction to Philosophical Investigation, a digest of Akalaṅka’s
mature philosophy on one side, and in Dharmakīrti’s
Pramāṇavārttikasvavṛtti, his Auto-commentary on the Essay on Knowledge on
the other side.

Download File (pdf; 120kb)
[image: Adobe PDF File Icon]
Specific Rule in India for Common Difference as Found in the Gommaṭasāra of
Nemicandra (c. 981)

*Author:* Dipak Jadhav

*Year:* 2015

International Journal of Jaina Studies (Online) Vol. 11, No. 2 (2015) 1-21

This paper brings the formula *d = S ÷ n²k*  into light and discusses its
various aspects including its context in Jaina philosophy. It was set forth
and utilized by Nemicandra (c. 981) in the *Gommaṭasāra (Karmakāṇḍa)* in
order to demonstrate the lower-thought-activity (*adhaḥ pravṛtta karaṇa*).
The lower-thought-activity is conceived as a special process of
thought-concentration which causes destruction (*kṣapaṇa*) or suppression (
*upaśamana*) of the sub-classes of conduct-deluding*karma*. The paper also
offers a rationale for this specific formula. The relevance of the formula
lies in the fact that it can be used for generating various arithmetic
progressions by finding the common differences, *d* , in accordance with
various values of an arbitrary number, *k* , while their sums, *S* , and
the numbers of their terms, *n* , remain fixed. This way he used it. It can
also be used for generating various arithmetic progressions by finding  in
accordance with various values of*k * while *n*  and *d* remain fixed and
by finding *n* in accordance with various appropriate values of *k* while
*S* and *d* remain fixed.

Download File (pdf; 179kb)
[image: Adobe PDF File Icon]
can the lifespans of Ṛṣabha, Bharata, Śreyāṃsa, and Ara tell us about the
History of the concept of Mount Meru?

*Author:* Ruth Satinsky

*Year:* 2015

International Journal of Jaina Studies (Online) Vol. 11, No. 1 (2015) 1-24

Willibald Kirfel (1920/1990), in his major study of Indian cosmology, Die
Kosmographie der Inder nach den Quellen dargestellt, compares the
Brahmanical, Buddhist and Jaina cosmological systems, and concludes that
the early Brahmanical cosmology forms the basis of the later cosmology
found in the epics and Purāṇas, and that of the Buddhist and Jaina systems,
as well. Contrary to Kirfel, this paper will present some provisional ideas
which suggest that the concept of Mount Meru entered Brahmanical literature
under the influence of the culture out of which Jainism and Buddhism arose,
the culture of Greater Magadha. This hypothesis is based on three
observations: 1) the concept of Mount Meru ("the golden mountain at the
center of the earth and the universe, around which the heavenly bodies
revolve") is prominent in the Jaina and Buddhist canons, but strikingly
absent from Brahmanical literature prior to the Mahābhārata; 2) its late
introduction into Brahmanical literature marks the shift from Vedic to epic
and Purāṇic cosmology at a time when Brahmanical contacts with Buddhism,
Jainism, and their region of origin, Greater Magadha, were possible and
presumably established; and 3) a special group of numbers, "the number
eighty-four and its multiples," is also prominent in the Jaina and Buddhist
canons, and in Ājīvikism, but likewise absent from Brahmanical literature
prior to the Mahābhārata. The lifespans of Ṛṣabha, Bharata, Śreyāṃsa, and
Ara, and the height of Mount Meru are linked to this special group of
numbers, and will serve, amongst others, as examples.

Download File (pdf; 184kb)

Dr Peter Flügel
Chair, Centre of Jaina Studies
Department of the Study of Religions
Faculty of Arts and Humanities
School of Oriental and African Studies
University of London
Thornhaugh Street
Russell Square
London WC1H OXG

Tel.: (+44-20) 7898 4776
E-mail: pf8 at soas.ac.uk

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20150713/e2aa9359/attachment.htm>

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list