‘Tataḥ Śrī-Gurus-Tasmai Sūrimantraṃ Dadyāt’, ‘Then the Venerable Guru Ought to Give Him the Sūrimantra’: Early Modern Digambara Jaina Bhaṭṭāraka Consecrations
2.1. Consecration Manuals
2.2. Bhaṭṭāraka Song Compositions
3. Early Modern Bhaṭṭāraka Consecrations as Prescribed by Ritual Manuals and Confirmed by Songs of Praise
3.1. Description and Selection of a Worthy Candidate
3.2. Preparations and Prefatory Rituals
3.3. Recitation of Bhaktis
3.4. Ablution of the Initiand’s Feet, Bhaṭṭāraka-Stavana, and Guṇāropaṇa
3.5. Transmission of the Sūrimantra
3.6. Āvāhana and Bhaṭṭāraka Pūjā
3.7. Gurvāvalī Recitation
3.8. Concluding Festivities
4. Further Glimpses from Songs of Praise
Eka jatī paṇḍita pañca saba mili kalasa kañcaṇa ḍhāliyā|Āñjalī sāha ghāsīrāma jhelī sāṃga jyo sujasa kīyā||6||Siṅghāsaṇi baidā śrī munirājaï sira para chatra dharāyajī|Kavalī kamaṇḍala pīchikā dayā upakaraṇa livāyajī||ṭeka||Livāï upakaraṇa saṃjama līdho pañca mahāvrata mani dharyā|Pāñca samiti triya gupati pālai pāñca indrī basi karyā|One yati [and] five paṇḍitas52 together poured the golden pitcher.As he poured the āñjalī, Sāha Ghāsīrāma brought fame to the saṅgha (?, sāṃga = ?).The king-like muni was seated on a throne, above his head a parasol spread.Taking lotus, kamaṇḍalu, and picchī as insignia of compassion.Taking the paraphernalia, he took renunciation, keeping the five mahāvratas in mind. He observed the five regulations (samiti) and the three restraints (gupti), bringing his five senses under control.
Kari pūja mahimā śrī jineśvara vighana dūri biḍāriyo||Taba sūri mantra ucāri mukhasyoṃ loñca nija karasyoṃ liyo|Satavaṃta sūra sadhīra samarasa bhāva niramala tharapiyo||Jayakāra sabada ucāra karatāṃ kalasa masataka ḍhāliyā|Śrī rāva kirapārāmajī nija sujasa jaga visatāriyā||3||Dīkṣā vidhi saba jugati syoṃ jī kīnhīṃ subudhi vicāri|Kaulī kaṃaḍala pīchikā jī dayā upakaraṇa sudhāri||Purava vidhi jaba āñjulī jī jhelī sāhāṃ tibāri||Tihiṃ bāra chājūrāmajī paradhāna pañca milyā dhaṇā|Gachapati gurupada dīyo mili kari sakala pañca mahājanā|Performing pūjā and praise of the jina, he removed all obstacles,then pronounced the Sūrimantra, with his own hands pulled out the hair from his head.The virtuous wise man, steadfast and equanimous, fixed his pure mind.Shouting ‘Hail!’, he poured the pitcher over the top of the head,Śrī Rāva Kirapārāmajī spread his glory through the world.|3|Wisely and considerately he organized the consecration rite according to all [correct] methods.He took hold of [?, sudhāri] lotus, kamaṇḍalu, and picchī, insignia of compassion.When Sāha Tibari poured the āñjalī according to the manners of old,at that time Chājurāmajī [and the] foremost, virtuous pañca united,together the pañca of mahājanas gave the rank of leader of the gaccha [and] guru.
4.1. Participation and Role of the Laity, Āñjalī
4.5. Renunciant Paraphernalia
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Bhaṭṭāraka-Pada-Sthāpanā-Vidhi, Sonagiri Manuscript, Text, and Translation
Appendix B. Bhaṭṭāraka-Pada-Sthāpanā-Vidhi, Kārañjā Manuscript, Text, and Translation of Selected Sections
Appendix C. Bhaṭṭāraka-Dīkṣā-Vidhi, Sonagiri Manuscript, Text, and Translation
- Cort, John E. 2002a. Singing the Glory of Asceticism: Devotion of Asceticism in Jainism. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 70: 719–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cort, John E. 2002b. Bhakti in the Early Jain Tradition: Understanding Devotional Religion in South Asia. History of Religions 42: 59–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cort, John. E. 2002c. A Tale of Two Cities: On the Origins of Digambara Sectarianism in North India. In Multiple Histories: Culture and Society in the Study of Rajasthan. Edited by Lawrence A. Babb, Varsha Joshi and Michael W. Meister. Jaipur and New Delhi: Rawat Publications, pp. 39–83. [Google Scholar]
- De Clercq, Eva. 2011. Bhattārakas and Digambara Monastic Lineages of Fifteenth Century Gwalior: Glimpses from Raïdhū’s Writings. Journal of Asian History 45: 63–83. [Google Scholar]
- Deo, Shantaram B. 1956. History of Jaina Monasticism from Inscriptions and Literature. Poona: Deccan College. [Google Scholar]
- Detige, Tillo. 2014. Worshipping Bhaṭṭārakas. Jaina Studies: Newsletter of the Centre of Jaina Studies 9: 27–30. [Google Scholar]
- Detige, Tillo. 2015. The Bhaṭṭārakas of Kārañjā (Lāḍa): Triveṇī Saṅgama at Jaina Kāśī. In Sanmati, Essays Felicitating Professor Hampa Nagarajaiah on the Occasion of His 80th Birthday. Edited by Luitgard Soni and Jay Soni. Bengaluru: Sapna Book House, pp. 143–76. [Google Scholar]
- Detige, Tillo. 2017. Manuscript Collections of the Western and Central Indian Bhaṭṭārakas. Jaina Studies: Newsletter of the Centre of Jaina Studies 12: 36–39. [Google Scholar]
- Detige, Tillo. 2018. Satpātrāya samarpittaṃ: Manuscript Copies and the Early Modern Digambara Saṅgha. In Gift of Knowledge: Patterns of Patronage in Jainism. Edited by Christine Chojnacki and Basile Leclère. Bengaluru: Sapna Book House, pp. 274–370. [Google Scholar]
- Detige, Tillo. 2019. "Guṇa kahūṃ śrī guru": Bhaṭṭāraka Gītas and the Early Modern Digambara Jaina Saṅgha. In Early Modern India: Literature and Images, Texts and Languages. Edited by Maya Burger and Nadia Cattoni. Heidelberg and Berlin: CrossAsia-eBooks, pp. 271–85. [Google Scholar]
- Detige, Tillo. Forthcoming. Digambara Renouncers in Western and Central India, c. 1100–800. In Brill’s Encyclopedia of Jainism. Edited by Knut Jacobsen, John E. Cort, Paul Dundas and Kristi Wiley. Leiden: Brill.
- Detige, Tillo. In preparation a. ‘Nityaṃ praṇamanti’: Funerary monuments of Digambara ācāryas, munis, and female renouncers from Western India (16th to 18th century CE).
- Detige, Tillo. In preparation b. The Ritual Veneration of Living Digambara Jaina Renouncers.
- Dundas, Paul. 1998. Open Boundaries: Jain Communities and Cultures in Indian History. Edited by John C. Cort. Albany: State University of New York Press, pp. 31–52. [Google Scholar]
- Flügel, Peter. 2006. Demographic Trends in Jaina Monasticism. In Studies in Jaina History and Culture: Disputes and Dialogues. Edited by Peter Flügel. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 312–98. [Google Scholar]
- Gough, Ellen. 2015. The Ṇamokār Mantra’s Forgotten Brother. Jaina Studies: Newsletter of the Centre of Jaina Studies 10: 32–34. [Google Scholar]
- Gough, Ellen. 2017. The Sūrimantra and the Tantricization of Jain Image Consecration. In Consecration Rituals in South Asia. Edited by István Keul. Leiden and Boston: Brill, pp. 265–308. [Google Scholar]
- Gough, Ellen. Forthcoming. The Tantric Initiation of a Jain Monk. In Tantric Communities in Context. Vienna: Institute for the Cultural and Intellectual History of Asia.
- Hoernle, A. F. Rudolf. 1891. Two Pattavalis of the Sarasvati Gachchha of the Digambara Jains. Indian Antiquary 20: 341–61. [Google Scholar]
- Hoernle, A. F. Rudolf. 1892. Three Further Pattavalis of the Digambaras. Indian Antiquary 21: 57–84. [Google Scholar]
- Jain, Muni Uttam Kamal. 1975. Jaina Sects and Schools. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company. [Google Scholar]
- Jaina, Ratanacandra. 2009. Jainaparamparā Aura Yāpanīya Saṅgha (Dvitīya Khaṇḍa). Āgarā: Sarvodaya Jaina Vidyāpīṭha. [Google Scholar]
- Jaina, Pī Sī, ed. 2010. Bhaṭṭāraka Paramparā. Jayapura: Jaina Anuśīlana Kendra, Rājasthāna Viśvavidyālaya. [Google Scholar]
- Joharāpurakara, Vidyādhara. 1958. Bhaṭṭāraka Sampradāya. Solāpura: Jaina Saṃskṛiti Saṃrakṣaka Saṅgha. [Google Scholar]
- Joharāpurakara, Vidyādhara. 1964. Jaina Saṅgha ke chaḥ aṃga. Anekānta 17: 231–32. [Google Scholar]
- Kāsalīvāla, Kastūracanda. 1967. Rājasthāna ke Jaina Saṃta: Vyaktitva Evaṃ Kr̥titva. Jayapura: Śrī Di. Jaina A. Kṣetra Śrī Mahāvīrajī. [Google Scholar]
- Kāsalīvāla, Kastūracanda. 1969. Bhaṭṭāraka Guṇakīrtti kā paṭṭābhiṣeka. Vīra-Vāṇī 21: 453–54. [Google Scholar]
- Kāsalīvāla, Kastūracanda. 1979. Kavivara Būcarāja Evaṃ Unake Samakālīna Kavi. Jayapura: Śrī Mahāvīra Grantha Akādamī. [Google Scholar]
- Kāsalīvāla, Kastūracanda. 1981. Bhaṭṭāraka Ratnakīrti Evaṃ Kumudacandra, Vyaktitva Evaṃ Kr̥titva. Jayapura: Śrī Mahāvīra Grantha Akādamī. [Google Scholar]
- Kāsalīvāla, Kastūracanda. 1982. Ācārya Somakīrtti Evaṃ Brahma Yaśodhara. Jayapura: Śrī Mahāvīra Grantha Akādamī. [Google Scholar]
- Nyāyatīrtha, Anupacanda. 1985a. Ᾱmera gaddī ke Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti kā Dillī meṃ paṭṭābhiṣeka. Vīra-Vāṇī 37: 421–23. [Google Scholar]
- Nyāyatīrtha, Anupacanda. 1985b. Ᾱmera meṃ paṭṭastha antima Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti. Vīra-Vāṇī 37: 34–36. [Google Scholar]
- Padmanandi, Muni, Muni Devanandi, and Āryikā Kulabhūṣaṇamatī. 1982. Humbuja-Śramaṇa-Siddhānta Pāṭhāvali. Jayapura: Śrī Digambara Jaina Kunthu Vijaya Granthamālā Samiti. [Google Scholar]
- Premī, Nāthūrāma. 1913. Bhaṭṭāraka (4). Jaina Hitaiṣī 8: 57–70. [Google Scholar]
- Premī, Nāthūrāma. n.d. Īḍar kī Gaddī. Jain Hitaiṣī, 459–64.
- Sangave, Vilas A. 1980. Jaina Community—A Social Survey, rev. ed. Bombay: Popular Prakashan. First published 1959. [Google Scholar]
- Sangave, Vilas A. 2001. Facets of Jainology. Selected Research Papers on Jain Society, Religion and Culture. Mumbai: Popular Prakashan. [Google Scholar]
- Śāstrī, Phūlacandra. 1992. Parvāra Jaina Samāja kā Itihāsa. Jabalapura: Śrī Bhāratavarṣīya Digambara Jaina Paravāra Sabhā. [Google Scholar]
The standard work on the bhaṭṭārakas of Western and Central India remains Joharāpurakara (1958). See also (Deo 1956, pp. 545–48; Kāsalīvāla 1967, 1979, 1981, 1982; Jain 1975, pp. 83–132; Sangave  1980, pp. 269–70, 317–22; 2001, pp. 133–43; Cort 2002c, pp. 40–42; Flügel 2006, pp. 344–47; Jaina 2010; De Clercq 2011).
This section draws from (Detige, forthcoming).
Technically, dīkṣā refers to renunciant initiation, paṭṭābhiṣeka means the consecration or anointment to a seat (paṭṭa), and pada-sthāpanā means the ‘establishment’ or conferment of a rank. As is the case more often, the sources employed for the present article use these terms more freely and interchangeably, and I follow them in this.
On these and other bhaṭṭāraka manuscript collections from Western and Central India, see (Detige 2017).
Although nowadays commonly used in scholarship, the sākhā (branch) denominations of the various Mūlasaṅgha Balātkāragaṇa lineages (Sonagiriśākhā, Kārañjāśākhā, Īḍarasākhā, etc.) derive from Joharāpurakara’s (1958) seminal Bhaṭṭāraka Sampradāya. They were however not used by the lineages themselves (see Detige forthcoming).
Jaina discusses and refutes the canonical authenticity (‘āgamokta’) of the bhaṭṭāraka consecration manual in a broader argument against the legitimacy of the rank of the clothed bhaṭṭāraka in general (see again Section 3.8). Questions about the legitimacy of bhaṭṭārakas are irrelevant to my concerns: the early modern bhaṭṭārakas’ venerability from the perspective of Digambara Jains contemporary to them.
See footnotes 41, 45. See also footnotes 35, 36, and footnotes in the text editions for other differences between the different versions of the longer manual.
The most important addition consists of the mantras spelled out in the section of the Sūrimantra, not given in the other versions (Section 3.5). Also of interest is an additional specification of a worthy candidate-initiand (Section 3.1). And, of less consequence, there is a reference to the storage of the Sūrimantra manuscript in a treasure box (Section 3.5). See discussions below (Section 3), and footnotes to the text editions and translations in the appendices for other, minor additions and differences.
In the composition on Bhaṭṭāraka Śubhacandra’s consecration in s. 1721 (1663 CE), however, his earlier ‘laghu dīkṣā’ made him a brahmacārī, not a kṣullaka (Kāsalīvāla 1981, p. 227).
The manuscripts refer to the text variously as Bṛhad-dīkṣā-vidhi and Mahāvrata-dīkṣā-vidhi, but towards the end the text refers to the newly initiated renouncer as a muni. The Kārañjā version also explicitly refers to the administration to the initiand of the Digambara muni’s five mahāvratas (see below, Section 3.1 and Section 4.3), samitis, and 28 mūlaguṇas, the Sonagiri text referring only to unspecified vows (vrata).
Wherever encountered, I do reverse the idiosyncratic, early modern manuscripts’ swapping of ‘va’ and ‘ba’.
In introducing the bhaṭṭāraka gītas here, I draw from an earlier discussion in (Detige 2019, esp. pp. 274–79).
To the fourteen attested compositions already listed in (Detige 2019, pp. 279–80), one can be added referring to the consecration of the Jerahaṭaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Narendrakīrti in Siroñja in s. 1740 (1682–1683 CE), retrieved by Śāstrī (1992, pp. 88–89) from a guṭaka found in Siroñja (no further specifications). Śāstrī (1992, pp. 88–89) edits parts of the text and discusses others. As found in other gītas (Detige 2019, pp. 280–82), a series of paṇḍitas and renouncers listed in the composition probably refers to attendees at the consecration: Muni Udayasāgara and two unranked male renouncers, Śubhakīrti and Jayakīrti, judging from their names and the fact that they are mentioned before Udayasāgara probably at least munis; three female renouncers, among which one āryikā and one bāī (probably brahmacāriṇī), a third one remaining unranked in at least Śāstrī’s account; and one brahmacārī (Śāstrī 1992, p. 89).
A single dated attestation of this bhaṭṭāraka stems from s. 1596 (Joharāpurakara 1958, p. 294).
Bhaṭṭāraka died s. 1850, other attestation s. 1840 (Joharāpurakara 1958, p. 76).
I thank John Cort for bringing my attention to and sharing both articles by Nyāyatīrtha.
As noted (footnote 11), the Sonagiri Mahāvrata-dīkṣā-vidhi’s brief reference to the administration of ‘vratas’ to the muni-initiand is expanded in the Kārañjā manuscript’s listing of mahāvratas and other vows.
e.g., ‘samiti gupati ādi e pāle cāritra tera prakāra’ (Kāsalīvāla 1981, pp. 56, 204); ‘paṃca mahāvrata sudha lā dhārī|paṃca samiti dhare aṃga udārī||traṇya gupati guru cāritra pāle|’ (ibid., pp. 228–29).
While sufficient sources attest early modern munis and ācāryas up to respectively the early 17th century CE and the late 18th century CE, references to early modern upādhyāyas are found far more rarely (Detige 2018, p. 279; forthcoming), and early modern kṣullakas are practically unattested (see Detige 2015, pp. 146–47 on a 19th century CE kṣullaka). One hypothesis, still to be verified through further research, is an early modern conflation of the kṣullaka and brahmacārī ranks, or perhaps rather the suppression or substitution of the former by the latter. This much would certainly seem plausible if we conceive of early modern, fully-initiated renouncers (munis, and beyond) as generally clothed, in which case one of these lower steps of renunciation might have seemed redundant.
As a later example, one Paṇḍita Maṅgalacanda was consecrated on the Kārañjā Balātkāragaṇa seat at the turn of the 20th century CE (Detige 2015, p. 152).
Again standing as a later example of this (cf. footnote 23), Paṇḍita Maṅgalacanda who was consecrated on the Kārañjā Balātkāragaṇa seat was a native of Nainavāṃ, Rajasthan (Detige 2015, p. 152).
I here draw from the discussion on maṇḍalācaryas in (Detige 2018, pp. 311–20).
‘-āmaṃtraṇapatraṃ’, v. S; ‘-āmantraṇapatrīṃ’, v. B; ‘-amantraṇa-patrikāṃ’, v. K. Version K adds that the invitation letter ought to be colored with kumkuma (‘kuṃkumāṃkitāṃ’).
Compositions on the Bāraḍolīśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Śubhacandra, Poravandara, s. 1721 (1663 CE, ‘caturvidha saṅgha’, (Kāsalīvāla 1981, p. 80, n. 1); ‘saṅgha caturvidha’, (Kāsalīvāla 1981, p. 227)); Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti, Delhi, s. 1792 (1734–1735 CE, ‘dūri desa syauṃ ābīyā jī saṅgha caturavidhi sāra’, (Nyāyatīrtha 1985a, p. 423)); Kārañjāśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti, second half of the 18th century CE (‘caturvidha śrīsaṅgha miḷavūna’, (Joharāpurakara 1958, p. 69, lekha 190)). Other compositions’ listings of attending renouncers can also be taken as confirmations of the gathering of the fourfold saṅgha, even when they don’t explicitly use the term caturvidha saṅgha, e.g., the composition on the consecration of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti in Āmera in s. 1770 (1712–1713 CE, (Nyāyatīrtha 1985b, p. 36); (see also Detige 2019, pp. 279–82)).
‘lagnaṃ gṛhītrvā’, V. B. V. S has ‘lagniṃ’, and V. K omits, probably both due to scribal error.
Version K drops the term ‘mahotsva’, festival, speaking directly of the pūjās being held.
‘atha bhaṭṭārakapadapratiṣṭhāpanakriyāmityādi uccārya’, v. S. ‘atha ‘bhaṭṭārakapadapratiṣṭhāpanakriyāyām’ ityādi uccārya’, v. B. ‘atha bhaṭṭārakapadapratiṣṭhāpanakriyāyāṃ pū.’, v. K.
While versions S & B only give the mantra, which itself sufficiently clearly indicates what is to be done, Jaina’s (2009, p. 116) version somewhat superfluously adds that ‘he’ ought to do precisely what is described in the mantra, making an ablution of both the initiand’s feet with water from the 108 pitchers (‘iti paṭhitvā kalaśāṣṭottaraśata-toyena pādau pariṣecayet|’).]
Jaina (2009, p. 118) translates as ‘Of this era’ (‘isa yuga ke’). Version S seems to read ‘tata idaṃ yogī nṛtyādi’, which seems to demand some dance of the yogi, the initiand. While it is not unusual for attending laypeople to dance during contemporary Digambara initiations (see Detige, in preparation b), it seems too late at this point for the initiand to engage in dance. The disagreement between the otherwise closely related versions S and B indicates this is probably an error of the Sonagiri manuscript’s scribe.
On the Sūrimantra in Śvetāmbara Jainism, (see also Dundas 1998).
The Sūrimantra is mentioned in compositions on the consecration of the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti, Delhi, s. 1792 (1734–1735 CE, (Nyāyatīrtha 1985a, p. 423), see below) and several Bāraḍolīśākhā bhaṭṭārakas: Kumudacandra, Bāraḍolī, s. 1656 (Kāsalīvāla 1981, pp. 101–102, 233–34, 205); Abhayacandra, Bāraḍolī, s. 1685 (ibid., p. 105); Śubhacandra, Poravandara, s. 1721 (ibid., p. 228).
(See Gough 2017, pp. 296–97).
In manuscript colophons and funerary monuments’ inscriptions, we find attestations of a title ‘sthavīrācārya’ which seems to have been used precisely for retired bhaṭṭārakas (Detige 2018, p. 329).
BPSV Versions S & B, as well as the BDV, also speak of ‘the Sūrimantra suitable for the post’, which the guru ought to give to the initiand (‘śrīgurustasmai tatpadayogyaṃ paraṃparāgataṃ sūrimantraṃ dadyāt’). Version K, however, changes this form into a dative (‘śrīguruḥ tasmai padayogyāya|paraṃparāgataṃ sūrimantraṃ dadyāt’), thus applying the term ‘suitable for the rank’ to the initiand instead of to the Sūrimantra. Although the term was indeed used in this context earlier on in all BPSV versions, in the description of a suitable candidate-muni, it can probably be taken as a confusion in the Kārañjā manuscript at this point, confirming it is a copy, here defective, of a text closer to the other versions.
‘-āyuḥ prante’, v. S; ‘āyuḥ prānte’, v. B; ‘āyuḥ prāṃte’, v. K; ‘svāyuḥ prāṃte’, BDV.
Jaina (2009, p. 118) interprets the Pada-sthāpanā-vidhi’s ‘muktaṃ bhavati’ as ‘he (the bhaṭṭāraka) dies’, after having written down the Sūrimantra. The Kārañjā version’s added locative ‘in a treasure box’ seems to confirm the interpretation that it is rather the manuscript being deposited (‘muktaṃ’). I do give Jaina’s reading a chance in my translation of the Dīkṣā-vidhi, which has ‘muktaḥ syāt-’.
‘tatpatrasthāpanikāvidhi’, BDV; ‘tatpatrasthāpanākīvidhi’, v. S (a scribal error or a vernacular phrasing entering the manuscript?). The Beḍiyā version refers only to an unspecified establishing (‘sthāpanikādhi’, probably a syllable ‘vi’ missing due to a scribal or editorial error). The Kārañjā version refers to the rite of the establishment of the rank (pada) (‘tatpadasthāpanavidhiḥ’) rather than of the manuscript (patra). Although reference to the bhaṭṭāraka consecration rite in general is not unfitting at this point, this is probably another point where the Kārañjā manuscript is flawed.
In the composition on the sixteenth century CE Guṇakīrti, we read that his bhaṭṭāraka dīkṣā was carefully planned by his guru Sumatikīrti, but Kāsalīvāla’s (1969; 1981, pp. 234–35) account of the composition does not make it clear whether Guṇakīrti was ultimately consecrated at the hands of Sumatikīrti as well.
The five obeisances of the Namokāramantra are similarly featured as part of many longer Jain mantras (Dundas 1998, p. 35).
The same mantra is still used in contemporary muni dīkṣās (Gough forthcoming), which needs not by itself surprise us, given that these use editions of texts similar to those of our manuscripts (see footnote 12).
Technically a Gurvāvalī or lineage of teachers (guru-śiṣya lineage) differs from a Paṭṭāvalī or list of incumbents. In early modern Digambara tradition however this distinction is not made, different manuscripts regularly identifying one and the same text through either of both titles.
The Kārañjā version of the BPSV drops the epithet Nandyāmnāya, like other textual as well as epigraphic sources also regularly do.
Compositions referring to the consecrations of Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha Bhaṭṭāraka Viśvasena, Ḍūṅgarapura, 16th century CE (‘utsava’, Joharāpurakara 1958, p. 270, lekha 672); Bāraḍolīśākhā bhaṭṭārakas Kumudacandra, Bāraḍolī, s. 1656, (‘pratiṣṭhā pāṭa mahotsava’, ibid., p. 101); Abhayacandra, Bāraḍolī, s. 1685 (‘uchava’, ‘mahochava’, ibid., p. 105); Śubhacandra, Poravandara, s. 1721 (‘mahochava’, ibid., p. 80, n. 1); and Kārañjāśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Devendrakīrti, second half of the 18th century CE (utsava, Joharāpurakara 1958, p. 69, lekha 190).
Compositions on the Bāraḍolīśākhā bhaṭṭārakas Kumudacandra (Kāsalīvāla 1981, p. 204), Ratnakīrti (ibid., p. 104), and Abhayacandra (ibid., p. 116), the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha Bhaṭṭāraka Vijayakīrti (Kāsalīvāla 1982, pp. 194–95), and the Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā Bhaṭṭāraka Mahendrakīrti, the latter also referring to the twelve recollections (‘dvādaśa bhāvanā’, Nyāyatīrtha 1985a, p. 423).
As I observed it at a kṣullaka-dīkṣā in Jaipur on 7 December 2014 (see also Detige, in preparation b).
In the words of Śāstrī (ibid., p. 89, or of the composition itself?) Narendrakīrti thus took ‘muni dīkṣā’. As noted, the composition on the consecration of the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha Bhaṭṭāraka Viśvasena in 16th century CE Ḍūṅgarapura also states that the initiand ‘took Digambara initiation (‘grahī dīkṣā digaṃbara’, Joharāpurakara 1958, p. 270, lekha 672).
Compare v. K (Appendix B).
Probably scribal error for ‘lagnaṃ’, as in version B.
This repetition, not present in the Kārañjā and B. versions, probably a scribal error.
‘caityālaye’ in versions B & K.
The manuscript here has a crossed out ‘yaratnatrayādi|pūjāmahotsavaṃ’, a corrected scribal error.
This repetition probably a scribal error, only ‘atha’ belonging to the next line already. See also next footnote.
Again, the repetition of ‘siddhaśrutācarya’ from the previous phrase, missing from versions B and K, is probably a scribal error. We get a feeling the scribe was copying from another manuscript (rather than being dictated the text), his eye here having caught onto the ‘…uccārya’ of the preceding phrase, resembling the ‘paṇḍitācārya’ after which he goes at fault.
Version K omits this seed syllable hṛūṃ.
Correcting a scribal error ‘subhabhi’.
Versions B and K have ‘tataḥ aidaṃ yugīnetyādi’. Given that it is typically version K which offers forms differing from versions B and S, its agreement with version B here probably means ‘idaṃ yogī nṛtyādi’ is an error of version S; see discussion in Section 3.4.
See previous footnote.
‘2’ indicates a repetition of the preceding word, thus ‘patre patre’. Similar in further cases.
Here and in the next case, version B has three times the vocative ‘dharmācāryādhipate’, as in the third repetition in this section, which seems to fit better here, next to the vocatice ‘paramabhaṭṭārakaparameṣṭhinn-’, than the dative ‘dharmācāryādhipataye’, so I translate all as vocative ‘O, Dharmācāryādhipati!’.
Version B and K here add ‘atra’, typically included in this standardized ritual phrase, probably omitted here by scribal oversight.
Illegible on my documentation of the manuscript.
Probably scribal error, doubting between both forms used before, dative ‘dharmācāryādhipataye’ and vocative ‘dharmācāryādhipate’. Versions B and K have the dative, which seems the best fit here.
From here on, I leave Prakrit passages in the mantras untranslated, because of, arguably, their more formulaic nature.
Bīja-akṣaras (seed syllables) like ‘saṃvauṣaṭ’ are untranslatable.
V. K reads ‘auṃ āṃ|anena maṃtreṇa saheṃdunā caṃdanena’.
Scribal error, should be vocative ‘balātkāragaṇe’.
Scribal error, ‘aṣṭatayīm’.
V. B places this responsibility with all the laypeople, not only the women, ‘upāsakā’ (Jaina 2009, p. 117).
Probably scribal mistake for ‘sakalasaṃghābhirucitaṃ’ of version K & B.
‘lagnaṃ’ as in v. B missing, scribal error.
Compare versions S & B, which indicate this much ought to be recited as an announcement (‘ityādi uccārya’, v. B; ‘ityādimuccārya’, v. S). Perhaps the manuscript’s abbreviation ‘pū’, of which signification I am unclear, is an indication of the latter.
Probably scribal error for ‘patra’ of other versions, see discussion in Section 3.5, footnote 45.
Scribal error, missing syllable.
|Bhaṭṭāraka Name||Lineage||Date of Consecration||Place of Consecration||Source|
|Prabhācandra||Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā||s. 1572 (1514–1515 CE)||Campāvatī (=Chaksu)||manuscript, Āmera śāstrabhaṇḍāra, Jaipur, guṭakā no. 5, cloth no. 203, pp. 230B–31B|
|Viśvasena||Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha Nandītaṭagaccha||16th Century CE16||Ḍūṅgarapura||(Joharāpurakara 1958, p. 270, lekha 672)|
|Ratnakīrti||Bāraḍolīśākhā||s. 1630 (1572–1573 CE)||Jālaṇapura (probably Jālanā, Maharashtra)||(Kāsalīvāla 1981, p. 104)|
|Guṇakīrti||Īḍarasākhā||s. 1632 (1574–1575 CE)||Ḍūṅgarapura||(Kāsalīvāla 1969; 1981, pp. 234–35)|
|Sahasrakīrti||Nāgauraśākhā||s. 1634 (1576–1577 CE)||?||manuscript, Baṛā Ḍaṛāji Mandira, guṭakā, cat. no. 148, pp. 52B–55B)|
|Kumudacandra||Bāraḍolīśākhā||s. 1656 (1598–1599 CE)||Bāraḍolī||three compositions: (Kāsalīvāla 1981, pp. 101–2, 233–34, 204–5)|
|Abhayacandra||Bāraḍolīśākhā||s. 1685 (1627–1628 CE)||Bāraḍolī||two compositions: (Kāsalīvāla 1981, pp. 105–6, 116–17)|
|Śubhacandra||Bāraḍolīśākhā||s. 1721 (1663–1664 CE)||Poravandara (Porbandar)17||(Kāsalīvāla 1981, pp. 226–28)|
|Narendrakīrti||Jerahaṭaśākhā||s. 1740 (1682–1683 CE)||Siroñja||(Śāstrī 1992, pp. 88–89)|
|Devendrakīrti||Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā||s. 1770 (1712–1713 CE)||Āmera||(Nyāyatīrtha 1985b)|
|Mahendrakīrti||Ḍhūṇḍhāḍaśākhā||s. 1792 (1734–1735 CE)||Delhi||(Nyāyatīrtha 1985a)|
|Devendrakīrti||Kārañjāśākhā||second half of the 18th Century CE18||?||(Joharāpurakara 1958, pp. 69–70, lekha 190)|
© 2019 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Detige, T. ‘Tataḥ Śrī-Gurus-Tasmai Sūrimantraṃ Dadyāt’, ‘Then the Venerable Guru Ought to Give Him the Sūrimantra’: Early Modern Digambara Jaina Bhaṭṭāraka Consecrations. Religions 2019, 10, 369. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel10060369
Detige T. ‘Tataḥ Śrī-Gurus-Tasmai Sūrimantraṃ Dadyāt’, ‘Then the Venerable Guru Ought to Give Him the Sūrimantra’: Early Modern Digambara Jaina Bhaṭṭāraka Consecrations. Religions. 2019; 10(6):369. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel10060369Chicago/Turabian Style
Detige, Tillo. 2019. "‘Tataḥ Śrī-Gurus-Tasmai Sūrimantraṃ Dadyāt’, ‘Then the Venerable Guru Ought to Give Him the Sūrimantra’: Early Modern Digambara Jaina Bhaṭṭāraka Consecrations" Religions 10, no. 6: 369. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel10060369