Sean Hillman B.A., M.A.
Doctoral student, Religion/Bioethics/South Asian Studies
Department for the Study of Religion
Joint Centre for Bioethics
Centre for South Asian Studies
University of Toronto
This paper began as a textual investigation into the normative
prescriptions on the procurement and eating of food in three Indic monastic
codes of discipline: the Jain Ākāraṅga Sūtra, the
Pali Buddhist Vinaya, and the Swaminarayan-Vaishnava Shikshapatri
Bhashya. However, as the research unfolded, it became clear that there was
far too much material in these three codes, and their commentaries, for a paper
of this size. As such, the focus will be squarely on Jain monastic food orthodoxy
as found in a close reading of two primary texts that have ascetics as their
main intended audience: the Ākāraṅga Sūtra and Ācārya
Amitagati's Yogasāra-prābhṛta (Gift of the Essence of Yoga). The latter
includes a contemporary commentary by the translator Dr. C.S. Jain. Along with a
textual analysis of the primary texts, some ethnographic sources will help
demonstrate if contemporary Jain food orthopraxy is in agreement or at odds
with the orthodoxy of the texts.
There are endless discussions about what Jains normatively can and
cannot, and descriptively do and do not, eat. The forbidden foods, and proper ways
of preparing and eating food, are well documented. The central issue I chose to
explore within this paper, however, is the doctrinal restrictions related to
the procurement of food and drink by Jain monastics. As such, the scope
of the study was initially narrowed down to two main questions: (1) Under which
circumstances can the Jain monastic receive and not receive food? And, (2) From
whom can the Jain monastic receive and not receive food? I also began to comb
the texts to discover whether Jain monastics can ask for food verbally
or indicate hunger by physical gestures. Again, there was an
overabundance of material. These removed sections will be grist for a future
study.
I aim to demonstrate that the Ākāraṅga Sūtra contains
a more subtle approach to non-violence (ahimsa) than by way of mere
restrictions that are meant to protect humans, animals, insects, plants,
microscopic organisms and elemental beings from physical harm and that which
threatens life. Unlike the Yogasāra-prābhṛta, the author(s) and
redactors of the Ākāraṅga Sūtra are
proponents of the fair distribution of resources, demonstrated by
numerous precepts designed to protect donors, other Jain monastic and non-Jain alms
recipients from resource deprivation by requiring the monastic to not divert
food to themselves that would otherwise rightly go to another.
The Texts
The Ākāraṅga Sūtra and Yogasāra-prābhṛta
generally frame the usage of food quite differently. In the initial section
of the former, we find food consumption normalized: “As the nature of this
(i.e. men) is to be born and to grow old, so is the nature of that (i.e.
plants) to be born and to grow old…as this needs food, so that needs food”
(Jacobi 10). In the latter, engagement with food is villainized: “A yogī,
established in detachment, does not entangle (himself) in the obstructions
caused by…the food… For one indulging with indolence in activities like taking food…continued
violence has been described” (vs. 14-15 Jain 2003, 175-176) Despite such
disagreements, both texts give guidance to the Jain monastic on how to properly
acquire food.
My choice of the Ākāraṅga Sūtra is
based on the primacy given to it as a monastic discipline text in the Jain
traditions. It is “[t]he first Aṅga” or ‘limb’ from among the eleven still
extant (out of the original twelve) (Jaini 52) and is “appropriately called Āckāra
(Conduct), [as it] forms the law book for Jaina monks and nuns. It regulates
their conduct by delineating the obligatory vows…and also by giving specific
instructions pertaining to permissible methods for obtaining such requisites as
food, clothing, lodging, and medicine” (Jaini 52-53). Relevant to an
investigation into textual Jain monastic food regulations, it is also a text that
includes both monks and nuns in its discussions. Two sections are of greatest
relevance to our topic: the first book’s seventh lecture on ‘Liberation,’ and
the second book’s first lecture on ‘Begging of Food,’ with a heavier emphasis
on the latter. As for the Yogasāra-prābhṛta, I find the text quite
compelling despite several difficulties including the fact that it was written
exclusively for male monastics to the complete neglect of nuns. Jain’s
translation and annotations are also fraught with constant grammar and spelling
errors, and his commentary is only distinguished by paragraph indentations
rather than more typical and obvious markers (explicit mention of a
commentarial section, font changes etc.) He also adds words and phrases to the
root text within parentheses, presumably to clarify the meaning, but does not
explicitly indicate that they are his additions. At times these additions seem
to be considerably and alarmingly interpretive.
The most concerning feature of the Yogasāra-prābhṛta is the manner
in which it unabashedly deprecates females. I fear my potential for releasing a
tirade as my (albeit modern) feminist sensibilities are deeply offended, and cannot
restrain myself from at least briefly mentioning the misogyny of the author and
translator/commentator. Both writers hold that women have both physical and
mental obstacles that block them entirely from becoming liberated (Jain 187-189).
Amitagati lists seven problematic mental states that all women suffer from, ‘indolence’
being the main one which Jain unpacks as fifteen types of ‘psychoses.’ Next,
Amitagati tells the reader that certain parts of the female body are prone to
the “generation of subtle jīvas” (Jain 188) such as under the breasts,
in the armpits and genetalia. Due to this, he concludes that “the (necessary)
restraint is not possible in women” (Ibid.). I fail to see how this does not
similarly occur under the arms and genetalia of males, but there is no
symmetrical mention of this fact. Strangely, Amitagati then allows for women to
practice as monastics in the immediately following verse, and Jain assures us
that this can only at best lead to a male rebirth. Although men are not made
out in the text to be particularly prone to any mental or physical problems
based on gender, Jain attempts to temper his misogynistic position by stating
that “all male human beings are also not so qualified, as only a few of them
get liberation after undergoing the course of necessary discipline” (Jain 188).
It is also the position of many Jains that it is impossible for any human being
to become liberated in this age and our particular cosmographical location.
Regardless, the bias against females is undeniable and cannot be ignored.
As difficult as it is to suspend one’s disbelief in this matter, for this
paper the focus is on food regulations within a singular chapter in the Yogasāra-prābhṛta
that explicitly addresses monastic discipline, as the introduction states: “Chapter-8:
This chapter deals with the conduct of the truth seeker, which has to be
essentially observed by him” (Jain 2003, xvi).
Dating both texts is a difficult task. Starting with the Aṅga texts, the
Indian Historiographer Dr. Jyoti Prasad Jain suggests that those who would
become the Digambara began redacting and writing their canon around the end of
the first century B.C.E., “preserving the bulk of the twelfth Aṅga...together
with fragments from the other Aṅgas” (Jain 2006: 182), whereas those who
would become the Śvetāmbara resisted canonical writing until the late fifth
century C.E. They preserved “substantial parts of the remaining eleven Aṅgas”
(Ibid.). One might think that the Digambara emphasis on orthopraxic
discipline would mean that they would be intent on preserving the Ākāraṅga Sūtra, but the evidence as to when and which sect wrote the first Aṅga seems lacking. A wide window of time, no doubt, we can at best say it is from the late urban/early classical period with the lower limit of its composition as first century B.C.E. and sometime after the late fifth century C.E as its upper limit.
Locating Ācārya Amitagati's Yogasāra-prābhṛta
temporally is made difficult by the fact that there are two Jain scholar-monks
by the same name, and that our author “has not mentioned the date of the
composition of his work” (Jain 2003, xiii). The one indicator that remains is
that one of the two Ācāryas mentions the other: “Amitagati-II has immensely
praised Amitagati-I, in his work, Śubhāṣita-Ratna-Sandoha, which was
composed by the latter in the tenth century A.D. when Muñja was in throne”
(Jain 2003, xiii). The Encyclopaedia of the Hindu World describes this Amitagati as a “Sanskrit poet, who was a Digambara Jain ascetic and pupil of Mādhavasena. He is the author of the Subhāṣitaratnasandoha ‘Collection of Jewels of Happy Sayings’ (A.D. 1014)” (Gar 384). The dates given have a discrepancy of a century. Sen’s Ancient Indian History and Civilization confirms the reign of the Paramara King Munja as “between A.D. 970 and 973” (319). This still doesn’t tell us which period is correct in placing the text that retroactively mentions our Amitagati. Is Jain’s suggestion more accurate because he has a dynastic reference? It is unclear. We can say at best say it is an early medieval text composed sometime around or before the cusp of the tenth and eleventh centuries C.E.
Jain Monastic
Food Acquisition
In discussing Jain
food pujas, Indologist John E. Cort states that “[f]ood is necessary to
maintain the physical body which is both an obstacle to liberation and a symbol
of bondage… food is part of the physical fuel that drives the round of rebirth”
(2001: 78). Immediately we can see an inherent tension in the life of a Jain
monastic: dependence on food for survival prevents liberation. This is because
Jains hold that every single action and interaction, physical, verbal
and mental, causes some relative degree of harm to others and oneself
and thus binds the subtle substance of karma to the soul, especially the
interactions involved with procuring and consuming food since “[f]ood fuels the
calamity of bodily existence, and is also associated with the sins inevitably
occasioned by its production and preparation” (Cort 1998: 158). Cort also states that “[b]ecause of the spiritual hazards of eating, fasting is
central to both lay and monastic practice among Jains” (Ibid. 152). As such, Jain monastics aim to eventually quit the desire for, and eating
of, food altogether with ritual/voluntary fasting unto death (sallekhana),
a feat that we might call the ultimate austerity. Among the Jains I have
encountered, sallekhana is held in the highest of esteem by monastics
and lay-people alike and those who do and have done the practice are publicly revered with
great pageantry during the event, and with shrines and glowing storytelling
post-mortem. There are monastics still engaging in the practice today and
although theoretically possible for lay-people, their engagement in sallekhana
is quite a rare occurrence. Most will expressly hope to be able to perform the
ritual sometime in this or in future lives. Eating and drinking, as the most
important of the physical needs, are also the most difficult to renounce. To
stop the influx of karma, throughout their religious career Jain monastics
train for total mental equanimity and inaction in many ways, including
restricting the frequency of eating and types of foods consumed, and various
lengths of fasting. With these aims, and in relation to procuring the food and
drink necessary for “keeping the body going while on the road to liberation” (Cort 1998: 158), monastic texts and practice serve to minimize the negative results
of physical, verbal and mental actions through prescription
and proscription. Although not perfectly avoiding all activity, such
regulations ensure “[t]he mendicant recipient is protected by asceticism”
(Ibid.).
There is some variation in the sources as to the manner and frequency that
Jain monastics go out to beg for, or receive, food. With regard to this, the late German Indologist Hermann Georg Jacobi references the Kalpa Sūtra: “The Gaina monks
collect food in the morning or at noon… They generally but once in a
day go out begging; but one who has fasted for more than one day may go a
begging twice a day (f7. Kalpa Sūtra, Rules for Yatis, 20)”
(xxv). In contemporary practice, variation in the way of, and the number
of sessions for, receiving food seems to be based on sectarian differences. In
brief, Cort found that “[t]he Mūrtipūjak [Śvetāmbar] procedure of gocarī contrasts sharply with the much more formally ritualized
practice of āhār-dān or gifting of food among the
Digambar Jains,” (Cort 2001: 107) where some monastics in the former sect
collect on behalf of fellow monastics and request alms with a verbal cue, and
the latter sect only ever collect their own alms and indicate hunger by a mere physical
gesture. British Historian William Dalrymple noted that his monastic
informant “Prasannamati Mataji
belonged to the order of “white-clad Digambara nuns, or matajis” (2). Of the two major Jain sects, the Digambara are renowned for their strict religious life: “probably the most severe of
all India’s ascetics” (Ibid.). As such, this nun reported that during her ordination ceremony her Guru “told us clearly what was
expected of us…to take food only once a day” (21) and that “[f]or many years, I
fasted, or ate at most only once a day” (4). It was also
observed that “[a]t ten o’clock each day, Prasannamati Mataji eats her one daily meal (11). Cort
observed a different approach among Śvetāmbar Jain monastics, who received food
three times daily: “Late morning is time for another food-gathering
round… Late afternoon is the time for the final food-gathering round and meal,
eaten before sunset (2001: 103). That there is no discernable pan-Jain
standardized requirement as to the number of alms-rounds will not at all hinder
this investigation.
We will next proceed to fair distribution in Jain
monastic food acquisition in two thematic sections: (1) not taking the
food of others while receiving food; (2) not taking the food
of fellow monastics after receiving food on their behalf.
Not Taking
the Food of Others While Receiving Food
The Ākāraṅga Sūtra holds the
resources of others as deeply valuable, and deploys an impressive number of
strategies to protect them from going to Jain monastics inappropriately. The
monastic is told to avoid public celebrations that offer food since “[w]hen a man goes to a much-frequented and vulgar entertainment…he
receives what should be given to others” (vs 4 Jacobi 95-96). There is also
one verse which shows a specific concern for ensuring that the Jain monastic
does not divert resources earmarked for the householder themselves: “there are some faithful householders …who will speak thus:… let us give to
the ascetics all food…that is ready for our use, and let us, afterwards,
prepare food for our own use.’ Having heard such talk, the mendicant should not
accept such-like food” (vs. 1 Jacobi 111). Monastics are also not to go
on alms-round to homes while food is being prepared:
A monk or a nun desirous to enter the abode of a
householder, should not do so, when they see that the milch cows are being
milked, or the food…is being cooked, and that it is not yet distributed. Perceiving
this, they should step apart and stay where no people pass or see them. But
when they conceive that the milch cows are milked, the dinner prepared and
distributed, then they may circumspectly enter or leave the householder's abode
for the sake of alms. (vs. 3 Jacobi 98)
This verse appears
to serve a dual purpose. Like the previous example, we see here another effort
to not lead the devoted Jain layperson to give what has already been portioned
off for their personal use. Additionally, following this precept is an attempt
to uphold another major requirement of Jain food orthodoxy and orthopraxy:
ensuring that no food has been prepared specifically for the monastic,
as this would directly implicate them in the karmic accumulation from any harms
done to living beings during such preparation. Anne Vallely, an anthropologist
of South Asian religions with a particular focus on Jainism, found this in the
contemporary practice of Jain nuns who informed her that “food must never have
been prepared expressly for them” (Vallely 3).
Another intriguing verse offers a special scenario:
If a householder
should fetch fossil salt or sea salt, put it in a bowl and return with it, a
monk or a nun on a begging-tour should not accept it… But if he has
inadvertently accepted it, he should return with it to the householder, if he
is not yet too far away, and say, after consideration: ‘Did you give me this
with your full knowledge or without it?' He might answer: 'I did give it
without my full knowledge; but indeed, O long-lived one! I now give it you;
consume it or divide it (with others)!' Then being permitted by, and having
received it from, the householder, he should circumspectly eat it or drink it (vs.
7 Jacobi 116).
Such food items are worrisome possibly because they are rare and costly.
First and foremost, our authors attempt to ensure that a householder does not
mistakenly give something that they either do not wish to give, or are in need
of for themselves. Checking with the donor is out of respect for both of these
possible valid reasons for not giving them. They are not made to be forbidden
items, but must be eaten clandestinely presumably so others do not see a
monastic taking precious food which would be considered unseemly by some and
harm the reputation of the order.
There are many verses, indicating a much greater textual concern,
which aim to ensure that the Jain monastic does not divert resources from
others who similarly rely on donated food, including non-Jains. Five of these
are explicit about avoiding this. One is generic: “A monk or a nun on a
begging-tour should not accept food…which for the sake of another has been put
before the door” (vs. 7 Jacobi 113). Two mention particular recipient-types;
one of which is found in the concluding lines of the begging of alms lecture: “the seventh rule for begging food. A monk or a nun may accept food…which is
not wanted by bipeds, quadrupeds, Sramanas, Brahmanas, guests, paupers, and
beggars” (vs. 9 Jacobi 118); and the other is the first mention of five recipient-types
that are given great importance by the text: “A monk or a nun
should not accept of food …which they know has been prepared by the householder
for the sake of many Sramanas and Brāhmanas, guests,
paupers, and beggars” (vs. 12 Jacobi 91). Next: “When a monk or a nun on a
begging-tour knows that a Sramana or Brāhmana, a guest, pauper
or beggar has already entered (the house), they should not stand in their sight
or opposite the door. The Kevalin says: This is the reason: Another, on seeing
him, might procure and give him food” (vs. 5 Jacobi 101). Lastly: “When a monk
or a nun on a begging-tour perceives that a Sramana or Brāhmana, a beggar or guest has already entered the house, they should not overtake
them and address (the householder) first” (vs. 6 Jacobi 102). The presence of
“Sramanas and Brāhmanas, guests, paupers, and beggars” at
food-related events is a frequently repeated refrain to continually reinforce
the concern of not taking the due share of these others and to cover various
possible scenarios, such as with the following: when such folk “are entertained
with food” (vs.1, Jacobi 92); during “assemblies, or during offerings to the
manes, or on a festival… when on such-like various festivals” (vs.3, Jacobi
92-93) these people are given food, but the prohibition is waived if “all have
received their due share, and are enjoying their meal” (vs. 4 Jacobi 93); “a
wedding breakfast in the husband's house or in that of the bride's father” and
“a funeral dinner or to a family dinner where something is served up,” unless
no such people are there and, further, the waiving of this prohibition
“applies, according to the commentator, only to sick monks, or such as
can get nothing elsewhere” (vs. 2 Jacobi 98); when “the first portion of the meal
is being thrown away (f1: In honour of the gods) or thrown down, or taken away,
or distributed, or eaten, or put off, or has already been eaten or removed”
since such people may “go there in great
haste” (vs. 1 Jacobi 99). At first glance we might assume that these
restrictions are displaying a non-sectarian motivation. However, it is also
possible that such textual moves are intended to avoid the Jain monastic order
from gaining the reputation among the community-at-large and the others who
similarly rely on the kindness of others, including those of other sects, of
interfering with others’ alms.
The purpose of one
particular precept is not made explicitly clear but follows directly after a
verse that prevents the Jain monastic from diverting the due share of other
beggars, which might indicate that it, too, is for the same purpose. In this
case, however, the recipients are animal scavengers: “When a monk or a nun on a
begging-tour perceives that many hungry animals have met and come together in
search of food, e.g. those of the chicken-kind or those of the pig-kind, or
that crows have met and come together, where an offering is thrown on the
ground, they should, in case there be a byway, avoid them and not go on
straight” (vs.1 Jacobi 102-103). There is another verse in this lecture on
begging of food that recommends steering clear of animals, but has to do with
protecting the mendicant and other life from harm (vs.3, Jacobi 100). Based on
the context of the verse in question, and the unlikeliness that the monastic
would take up such food from the ground (since taking up food “placed on the
earth-body”( vs.4 Jacobi 106) is prohibited and the “monk or a nun may accept
food which had been taken up from the ground” only if “placed in a vessel or in
the hand” (vs. 8 Jacobi 118)), I conclude that the concern is not the taking
of such food by the monastic. In walking close to the animals, there is the
potential for them to scatter out of fear and lose the opportunity to partake
of the food. An even more nuanced possibility is that after scattering the
animals may very well return, as we all have observed in nature, but the
original and natural order of arrival to the food would be disturbed by the
monastic. A variation on the theme of not depriving others of what would be rightfully
theirs, this would be a very subtle approach to non-harm, indeed. There is
another verse that may depict a similar interest in the needs of animals: “A
monk or a nun on a begging-tour should not accept any such-like raw unmodified
substances as sugar-cane, which is full of holes, or withering or peeling off
or corroded by wolves” (vs. 12 Jacobi 110). Its contextual placement has more
to do with avoiding food items that are still growing or potentially teeming
with life, such as with tiny beings that take up residence or are born in the
small spaces within plant-life. Also, ideally the cane would not have been
procured specifically for the monastic. However remote, these points do not
eliminate the possibility of a multi-purposed verse interested in protecting
plants, plant-dwelling beings, and wildlife food sources.
Not Taking
the Food of Fellow Monastics Having Received Food on their Behalf
While researching Jain ritual/voluntary death (sallekhana) in India in the summer of 2010, many of my interlocutors informed me that a
Jain monastic is not an appropriate person to be the donor of any items because
of their adherence to non-possession (aparigraha). As such, “the mendicant is dependent upon the laity for food and all the other
necessities of life” (Cort 2001: 105). Such ethnographic accounts might lead us to believe that Jain
monastics do not give food to other monastics but there are both textual and
anthropological evidence that show certain circumstances whereby the Jain
monastics distribute food to other monastics. Our two texts disagree as
to whether a monastic can give away food that has been given to them. Verse 64
of the Yogasāra-prābhṛta states: “The morsel of food placed in the hand
(of a saint) is not fit to be given to any other (person) (by the saint). If it
is given so, the saint should not take food (thereafter). If he takes (food)
(even then), the saint commits blemish (for himself)” (Jain 2003, 194). Jain
adds in his commentary that “[t]he saint must partake of food as offered by the
householder… He must not meddle with it or spare it for use by others. This
rule should be observed very strictly by him or he will incur sin for himself” (Jain
2003, 194). The verse taken alone does seem to allow for the monastic to give
away food that has been given to them, under the requirement that they do not
eat any more. I assume this to mean during that session of eating, and not
forever and always. A negative karmic result is said only to come if, having
given food away, the mendicant eats again and not by the mere act of giving
food away. The commentary has a stricter position than the verse. It does not
allow for the food to be given to another as the negative karmic consequence
comes from any act other than partaking of the food as it is. The commentary
also seems to suggest that the food offered must be eaten in its entirety and
not altered, such as with making small piles with the fingers to more easily
place food in the mouth.
Although there is a verse
in the Ākāraṅga Sūtra that forbids monastics from giving
food to fellow monastics, it is only under very specific circumstances: “A monk or a nun on a begging-tour should not give, immediately or
mediately, food…to…a monk who avoids all forbidden food, to one who does not”
(vs.10 Jacobi 90). This prevents cross-contamination between those whose food practices
differ. Otherwise, there are many situations outlined where it is
permissible, and even required, to give food to fellow monastics (and even
non-Jains). We find the following admonishment in the “Begging of Food”
lecture of the Ākāraṅga Sūtra:
A monk or a nun, having received a more than sufficient
quantity of food, might reject (the superfluous part) without having considered
or consulted fellow-ascetics living in the neighbourhood, who follow the same
rules of conduct, are agreeable and not to be shunned; as this would be sinful,
they should not do so. Knowing this, they should go there and after consideration
say: 'O long-lived Sramanas! this food…is too much for me, eat it or drink it! After
these words the other might say: 'O long-lived Sramana! we shall eat or drink
as much of this food or drink as we require; or, we require the whole, we shall
eat or drink the whole.’ (Vs. 6 Jacobi 112-113)
Here, giving
leftover food to fellow Jain mendicants is made to be a requirement, with
the fault lying in not attempting to give the leftover food to
them. If we consider this verse and verse 64 from Amitagati’s text, the root
verses alone, it appears as though: (1) having leftovers is anticipated and a
faultless possible outcome, and (2) having such leftovers and giving them away
to another Jain monastic, after the mendicant themselves has completed eating
what they require, is also at least not a breach in conduct. The
chronologically later text has thus amended the earlier textual requirement to
seek an appropriate recipient of leftover food.
There is another verse in the same lecture of the Ākāraṅga Sūtra which shows the monastic as one who receives food and
distributes it to fellow Jain monastics:
A single mendicant,
having collected alms for many, might, without consulting his fellow-ascetics, give
them to those whom he list; as this would be sinful, he should not do so.
Taking the food, he should go there (where his teacher…is) and speak thus: 'O
long-lived Sramana! there are near or remote (spiritual) relations of mine…forsooth,
I shall give it them.’ The other may answer him: ‘Well now, indeed, O
long-lived one! give such a portion!' As much as the other commands, thus much
he should give; if the other commands the whole, he should give the whole ’ (Vs.
1 Jacobi 113).
Again we see a discrepancy between our two texts.
In this case, for fear of the mendicant making distribution decisions based on
attachment, they are required to consult their teacher for permission and
guidance. The texts suggests that the teacher may well answer agreeably
to the request, but leaves room for the teacher to suggest otherwise in the
service of fairness. This practice of collecting alms on behalf of other
monastics is supported in ethnographic accounts of contemporary Jain practice. As briefly mentioned earlier, in the Digambar āhār-dān food gifting “each mendicant, no matter how senior, performs his or her own
food-gathering round” (Cort 107), whereas Śvetāmbar monastics do collect on behalf of other monastics. In a section entitled The
Daily Routine of a [Śvetāmbar] Murtipujak
Mendicant under ‘Gifting’ (Cort 2001: 100), the ethnographer
describes how “some of the mendicants go to the nearby homes of Jain laity to
collect food and water in their wooden bowls, a ritualized action known as gocarī” (102) and, while doing so, “[h]ow much the mendicant takes depends upon
the number of mendicants for whom he or she is collecting food” (107). The
potential for favouritism mentioned in the Ākāraṅga Sūtra verse above is solved in contemporary Śvetāmbar
practice not by consultation with senior monastics but by equal distribution to
all mendicants (103).
The “scholiast says that [it] should only be resorted to under pressing
circumstances” (Jacobi 102), but the Ākāraṅga Sūtra text does have an allowance for the Jain monastic
to not only divide up donated food according to his best discretion, but also
to give to non-Jain beggars:
Another man may bring and
give him food…and say unto him : 'O long-lived Sramana! this food…has been
given for the sake of all of you; eat it or divide it among you.’ Having
silently accepted the gift, he might think: 'Well, this is just (enough) for
me!' As this would be sinful, he should not do so. Knowing this, he should join
the other beggars, and after consideration say unto them: ‘O long-lived
Sramana! this food…is given for the sake of all of you; eat it or divide it
among you.’ After these words another might answer him: ‘O long-lived Sramana!
distribute it yourself.’ Dividing the food…he should not (select) for himself
too great a portion, or the vegetables, or the conspicuous things, or the
savoury things, or the delicious things, or the nice things, or the big things;
but he should impartially divide it, not being eager or desirous or greedy or
covetous (of anything) (vs. 5, Jacobi 101-102).
Despite the scholiast offering
the escape clause that this applies only in times of dire need, it is an
impressive verse nonetheless. Firstly, giving food to a monastic under the same
rule is one thing, and our texts disagree (to some extent) as to the
appropriateness such a practice. Giving food to non-Jains, who may or may not
even be mendicants, is another matter entirely! It is surprising since many
verses allow the monastic only to “share with his
fellow-ascetics in the neighbourhood, who follow the same rules of conduct, are
agreeable, and not to be shunned” (vs. 7 Jacobi 116). The food is not only to be portioned out equally, but the recipient who has
the unusual charge of dividing up the food is asked to leave the worst for
themselves. There seems to be an internal contradiction in these final lines
since they both call for negative partiality, giving the best and leaving the
worst, as well as impartiality which would mean that every recipient would get
equal amounts of both the best and worst foods. Both principles are evident but
the competing injunctions for fair distribution and abandoning desire in this
excerpt seems to be won by the latter, if the word-count is any indication of
emphasis. A similar warning is given for ordinary circumstances as well: “A single mendicant, having
received some food, might eat what is good, and bring what is discoloured and
tasteless; as this would be sinful, he should not do so” (vs. 3 Jacobi 114). When
there is enough to distribute, eating before returning to the religious
community does not seem to be problematic, nor is the equal distribution of
portions mentioned here. Rather, the act of eating what is best and leaving the
dregs for fellow monastics is proscribed. The verse leaves room for two
possibilities: the recipient (a) eats the dregs themselves and leaves the best
for others, or (b) ensures that every monastic (including themselves) gets an equal amount of both the best and worst parts of the food.
Lastly we have two examples of monks concealing food by
various means in order to divert them for their own use. The first has the
recipient monastic disguising the food to deceive others as to its quality:
A single mendicant,
having collected agreeable food, might cover it with distasteful food,
thinking: 'The teacher or sub-teacher…seeing what I have received, might take
it himself; indeed, I shall not give anything to anybody!' As this would be
sinful, he should not do so.
Knowing this, he
should go there (where the other mendicants are), should put the vessel in his out-stretched
hand, show it (with the words): 'Ah, this! ah, this!’and hide nothing. (vs. 2
Jacobi 114)
Using the hermeneutics of suspicion we can surmise that this sleight of
hand was known to our author(s) in a historical context where living off of the
kindness of others, both by religious practitioners and ordinary folk, is a
long-standing practice. It likely did not arise out of pure imagination and
they hoped to nip this trick in the bud. What complicates this scenario is the
potential for the teacher to disregard the code and take the best for
themselves! Going by the spirit of the law, the authors might hope that the
teacher would follow the same repeated principle of not taking the best food. The
next and final example has mendicants giving food for the sake of fellow
mendicants who are sticken with illness via an intermediary monastic:
Some mendicants say
unto (others) who follow the same rules of conduct, or live in the same place,
or wander from village to village, if they have received agreeable food and
another mendicant falls sick: 'Take it! give it him! if the sick mendicant will
not eat it, thou mayst eat it.’ But he (who is ordered to bring the food)
thinking, ‘I shall eat it myself’ covers it and shows it (saying): ‘This is the
lump of food, it is rough to the taste, it is pungent, it is bitter, it is astringent,
it is sour, it is sweet; there is certainly nothing in it fit for a sick person.’
As this would be sinful, he should not do so. (vs. 1 Jacobi 116)
This is among the few concluding verses of the ‘Begging of Food’ lecture
and features the particularly despicable possibility of a monastic hiding food
items and lying about the nature of those items in order to eat
food meant for a sick mendicant. I think it is significant that this section of
the Ākāraṅga Sūtra ends on such
a note. It gives a special emphasis on ensuring a fair share of food for the
most vulnerable members of the Jain monastic order.
Conclusion
In discussing the relationship between Jain monastics and lay-people, the
Ākāraṅga Sūtra gives great value to the resources
of householders. It also holds fair distribution in esteem, in both the
contexts of Jain monastics among themselves and between Jain monastics and
others who depend on food donations, both of human and animal species. I
propose that this is a very subtle manner of practicing non-violence that comes
from a deep concern for the well-being and integrity of Jain ascetic
practitioners and those they come into contact with over the course of their
religious careers. Having pored over every verse related to the topic of food
in this text, the sheer quantity of verses that push for protection of the due
share of non-Jain dependents betrays an anxiety that likely has to do with
protecting the reputation of the Jain monastic community. This is also supported by the constant
mention of various activities that are ultimately allowable but which should be
done in secret rather than in full view of watching eyes. There is some
indication that the Ākāraṅga Sūtra considers the
reduction of desire in the monastic as a more weighty requirement than fair
distribution. As for the conduct chapter of Ācārya Amitagati’s Yogasāra-prābhṛta,
despite leaning away from the idea, it does leave room for the monastic to give
food to other monastics. A similar emphasis on fair distribution as we see in
the temporally earlier Ākāraṅga Sūtra is
entirely absent.
Citations
Cort,
John E. Open Boundaries: Jain Communities and Cultures in Indian
History (SUNY Series
in Hindu Studies). State University of New York Press, 1998.
Print.
__________.
Jains in the World: Religious Values and Ideology in India.
Oxford University
Press, 2001. Print.
Dalrymple, William. “The Nun’s Tale.” Nine Lives: In Search of the Sacred in Modern India. Bloomsbury (2009): 1-28. Print.
Gar, Gaṅgā Rām (Ed.). Encyclopaedia
of the Hindu World: Ak-Aq. New Delhi:
Ashok Kumar Mittar, 1992. Print.
Jain, Dr. C.S. (Tr. &
annotations); Ācārya Amitagati's Yogasāra-prābhṛta (Gift of the
Essence of Yoga). Bharatiya
Jnanpath, New Delhi; 2003. Print.
Jain, Dr. Jyoti Prasad. Religion
and Culture of the Jains. New Delhi:
Bharatiya Jnanpith, 2006. Print.
Jaini, Padmanabh S. The Jaina Path of Purification.
Motilal Bariarsidass, 1998. Print.
Jacobi, Hermann (tr.). Jaina Sutras Part I: The Ākāraṅga
Sūtra, The Kalpa Sūtra. Oxford University Press, 1884. Motilal Bariarsidass, 1964. Print.
Sen, Sailendra Nath. Ancient
Indian History and Civilization: 2nd Edition. New
Delhi: New Age International
Publishers, 1999. Print.
Vallely, Anne. Women and the Ascetic Ideal in Jainism.
Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Anthropology: University
of Toronto,1999.
