Polemic, Diatribe, and Farce: Jaina Postures vis-à-vis Sectarian Others in the Kannada Texts of Nayasēna, Brahmaśiva, and Vṛttavilāsa

Abstract

The Deccan in the first half of the second millennium is marked by political and religious ferment. The Cōḻas, Gaṅgas, Rāṣṭrakūṭas, and Cāḷukyas are contesting its mundane territory, while the Śaivas, Jainas, and Vaiṣṇavas are contesting its spiritual geography. Unlike the interactions of the earthly rulers which spill real blood, the bloodshed of the spiritual gurus is merely metaphorical. But, the animosity driving their interactions is no less intense, for survival is at stake for them just as it is for their secular counterparts. In this essay, I explore the Jaina point of view in sectarian contestations between the twelfth and the fourteenth centuries through the texts of three Kannada authors: Dharmāṁṛtam of Nayasēna (1112CE), Samayaparīkṣe of Brahmaśiva (c.1200CE), and Dharmaparīkṣe of Vṛttavilāsa (c.1360CE). My objective is to identify the sectarian ‘other’ that these authors address, dispute with and vilify, and to explore the changing nature of this sectarian ‘other’ and the shifting attitudes of these authors towards their opponents.

1. Introduction

Digambara Jaina ascetic and lay communities flourished in the Deccan and South India from the early centuries of the first millennium. Settar (1989) traces the rise and fall of Digambara Jainas in South India based on several centuries of epigraphical and material records in Śravaṇabeḷgoḷa, their enduring religious centre even up to the present time. He describes three phases in the history of Digambara Jainas: an early period of spiritual purity and ascendency of a largely itinerant ascetic community, which lasted up until 900CE; a transition from this state of renunciate itinerant simplicity to one of sedentary monastic coexistence in the midst of a worshipful lay community from 900 to 1100CE, culminating in a period of material prosperity led by the great institution-building monastic order the Mūlasaṅgha; and a subsequent period of decline. The Digambara monastic and lay community was increasingly in competition with the purāṇic and vedic sectarian communities1 during 1100–1300CE, and largely lost its position of social dominance by the end of the period. This is not to say that Digambara Jainas disappear from the social landscape of the Deccan. Though they receded from the social centre stage marked by collaboration with the dominant royal power of the time and place, they continued to flourish with the support of several subsidiary ruling families and merchant communities.

The larger narrative of the emergence, dominance, and recession of Digambara Jainas in the Deccan remains to be explored, even in scholarship within the religious tradition. This essay is a limited attempt to explore the circumstances and attitudes of Digambara Jainas, as reflected in the Kannada texts of three authors who lived and wrote between 1100CE and 1400CE. The authors of these texts are Jaina monks, or laymen under the strong influence of Jaina monks, and their views are naturally partisan. It would be unreasonable to assume that they represent the sum total of circumstances and perspectives of the ‘Digambara Jaina community’, consisting of lay folk with varying degrees of attachment to a community identity defined as ‘Jaina’, for it was this same larger population, which was becoming increasingly prosperous and more numerous, that was fought over by various sects that agitated so furiously in the religious ferment of the initial centuries of the second-millennium Deccan.

In the following pages, I will explore these three texts in chronological order: Dharmāṁṛtam of Nayasēna (1112CE), Samayaparīkṣe2 of Brahmaśiva (c.1200CE), and Dharmaparīkṣe of Vṛttavilāsa (c.1360CE). But, I will begin, first, with a brief discussion of two inscriptions that form bookends to the period of the two and half centuries covered by these texts, and span the arc of the Digambara Jaina social experience in the Deccan during this time. My objective is to explore what we may judiciously infer about developments in the Digambara Jaina community during this period, and, therefore, how we may understand the texts of these Jaina authors within this larger context.3 I will then proceed to discuss the texts themselves, beginning with a short discussion of the author and his probable circumstances, and then delve into what we can infer about whom the author is attempting to address, portray, exhort, criticise, and other in his narrative.4 I will conclude with some thoughts on the changing nature of the sectarian ‘other’ the authors were contending with, as well as the changing strategies of Jaina contention. Though we know that Digambara Jainas were ultimately unsuccessful in prevailing over their Śaiva and Vaiṣṇava sectarian opponents, it is significant that they continue to feature on the social landscape of the Deccan, even to the present day, and there is much that remains to be known about them and is worth studying about in the course of their history.

2. The Inscriptions

The social distance travelled by the Digambara Jaina monastic community between the time of Nayasēna and that of Vṛttavilāsa is made stark by two inscriptions at Śravaṇabeḷgoḷa: #77 of 1129CE and #475 of 1368CE (see Gōpāl 1973).

Śravaṇabeḷgoḷa #77 of 1129CE (see Appendix D below for a translation of the relevant portions) is a lengthy Sanskrit inscription of 223 lines of engraved text memorialising the death of the Digambara Jaina monk Malliṣēṇa, and is composed by Mallinātha. It is clear from the inscription that Malliṣēṇa belonged to a lineage of Digambara Jaina sectarian warriors, whose debating prowess in the courts of kings of various dynasties (Rāṣṭrakūṭa, Hoysaḷa, Cāḷukya) was legendary, and who had had particular success in the past in defeating Śaivas of many kinds. The latest in this lineage, Malliṣēṇa, was himself a renowned sage revered by kings. Though he is not described as sectarian warrior, he was renowned as much for his scholarship as for his renunciate attainments, since he is described as an authoritative adjudicator on āgamas. Perhaps the most significant aspect of Malliṣēṇa’s renown—which procured such an extensive memorial for him—is that he belonged to a lineage of even greater monastic achievements. Let us compare this with our second Śravaṇabeḷgoḷa inscription from about 240 years later.

Śravaṇabeḷgoḷa #475 of 1368CE is a much shorter Kannada inscription of 35 lines of engraved text (see Appendix E below for a full translation). It records the decision of king Bukka I of the Saṅgama dynasty of Vijayanagara on a petition made by the Jainas of Āneyagondi, Hosapaṭṭaṇa, Penuguṇḍe, Kallehapaṭṭaṇa, and other places about the injustice enacted upon them by Vaiṣṇavas. It is a remarkable ‘Jaina’ inscription in that it begins with an invocation to the Vaiṣṇava sectarian teacher Rāmānuja instead of to the Jina. The fourteenth-century social reality of Śravaṇabeḷgoḷa and surrounding areas appears to have been one of the harassment of Jainas by Vaiṣṇavas, which was severe enough for them to come together from all over the kingdom and make a formal complaint to the king.5 The Jainas were led by a merchant who did not appear to hold any provincial office. On the face of it, Bukka declared that he saw no difference between Vaiṣṇava and Jaina, and that they should live in amity. In reality, he imposed a protection tax on all Jainas in the kingdom, and made their tormentors, the Vaiṣṇavas, their protectors. In addition, it was the Vaiṣṇava religious authorities in the person of the Tātācārya—head of the Vaiṣṇava religious institution of Tirupati—who were responsible for protecting the Jainas, and not the local secular authorities.

This was a remarkable fall from eminence over 240 years. But, it would be overly reductive to draw a straight line from the Jaina dominance of twelfth-century society to their social subjugation under the protection of Vaiṣṇavas in the fourteenth century. As we will see from an examination of our three texts below, the Jainas certainly lost ground, but to different sects at different times and places.

3. The Texts

Modern Kannada scholarship understands the three poets Nayasēna, Brahmaśiva, and Vṛttavilāsa as viḍambanakāras or satirists, and they do indeed employ satire to make their point, borrowing tales from earlier Jaina Dhūrtākhyāna satires in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and Apabhramsha, as described by Rāghavēndrarāv et al. (1981, pp. 468–88), Osier (1999), De Jonckheere (2019, 2020), and Ramot (Forthcoming). However, their satire is neither timeless nor uniform, and these texts are deeply grounded in the times and places in which these authors lived and wrote. In point of fact, the satirical nature of these texts or even the language of their composition are not points of unique interest, for Jaina contention with sectarian opponents is not limited to texts of the satire genre; they have long achieved this in their purāṇic as well as doctrinal literature in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and Kannada, as discussed, for example, in Jaini (1993), Pierce Taylor (2016), Chauhan (2021), and Gurevich (2022). Instead, what makes for unique interest is that these three texts taken together represent a localised historical arc of two and half centuries, which enables us to attempt a reconstruction grounded in time and place.

3.1. Nayasēna, Dharmāṁṛtam

3.1.1. The Poet, His Period, His Text

Of the three authors, we know the most about the Digambara monk Nayasēna. The poet names himself in his text as author, referring to himself as nayasēnamunīndra (Nayasēna 1924: 1.08, 1.21), digambaradāsa and nayasēnadēva (chapter colophons), and suvratāmbhōnidhi and udyattapōmūrti (1.57). He calls himself the disciple of trailōkyacakrēsvaranarēndrasēna (1.20–1.21) and, by invoking nearly 50 Digambara monks (1.09–1.38), places himself firmly within the Digambara monastic tradition. He acclaims himself a scholar and poet (1.57, 1.58, chapter colophons), and places himself as heir to the tradition of earlier Kannada Jaina poets Asaga, Ponna, Pampa, Gajāṅkuśa, Guṇavarma, and Ranna (1.39). He tells us that Dharmāṁṛtam was composed in the town of Muḷugunda (Nayasēna 1926: 14.164), a well-known twelfth-century centre of Jaina monasticism.6 The text was composed in Śaka 1037, Nandana samvat: an inconsistency resolved by modern scholarly consensus to intend 1112CE.7

Dharmāṁṛtam is a campūkāvya8 composed in a mixture of prose and verse in a variety of meters. It consists of fourteen chapters called āśvāsa, each dedicated to the elucidation of a Jaina sectarian belief. The device used by the poet is a series of illustrative tales told by the gaṇadhara Gautama to the king Śrēṇika on the occasion of the samavasaraṇa of Vardhamāna Mahāvīra in response to his demand to be taught the means to escape saṁsāra (1.60–1.66). The poet calls his text the “nectar of the Jina’s teaching”, but clearly it is more than that. Nayasēna uses an idiomatic register of Kannada, his prose passages overflowing with proverbs and popular sayings drawn from the social life of the non-elite of his times. He deploys low-brow humour likely to resonate with a non-royal audience9; a long way off from the works of the ancient Kannada poets with whom he claims literary communion. And yet, his text has some pretensions to being a mahākāvya or courtly epic10 with extended descriptions of women and their charms and activities (7.176–7.219), of forest-sports (13.10–13.33) and water-sports (14.13–14.20), and prostitutes (2.38–2.54, 3.113–3.134). However, Nayasēna never lets us forget that he is a renunciate, and these mahākāvya tropes serve in the end only to illustrate a moral principle within the tale.

In the following paragraphs, I will discuss each sectarian ‘other’ addressed by Nayasēna. The reader may orient themself by referring to the plot summary in Appendix A.

3.1.2. The Vaidika Brahmin ‘Other’, Who May Yet Be Reclaimed

We meet four vaidika brahmins in Dharmāṁṛtam: Vasubhūti, Viśvānulōma, Puṣpadāḍa, and Sōmadatta.

Vasubhūti (1.84–1.271): When the devout Jaina merchant Dayāmitra sets out on a trading trip, the brahmin Vasubhūti joins his caravan to go bathe in the Gaṅgā. Vasubhūti looks down upon Jainas, scorning the ascetics’ practice of self-mortification but eating in the houses of others, their practice of cleaning food but not washing their bodies, and the behaviour of laymen in honouring such ascetics. He decides to reform Dayāmitra and attempts to persuade him back to the vaidika sect by pointing out the slothfulness of Jaina ascetics, who perform no ritual and are driven merely to sustain their bodies. Dayāmitra is convinced it is Vasubhūti who is deluded and decides to convert11 him in turn. He pretends to flatter Vasubhūti and offers him gifts that would have been given to Jaina sages, since Vasubhūti is a thousand times greater than them: only he must perform certain vows. The vows he describes are identical to the harsh practices of Jaina ascetics. Vasubhūti agrees, blinded by greed, and overestimating his own endurance. Predictably, he fails, and, realising that Dayāmitra has taught him a lesson, asks for relief. The triumphant Dayāmitra tells him that this is child’s play for Jaina ascetics, and convinces Vasubhūti to seek Jaina instruction. Dayāmitra begins a sermon, first making a plea for an openminded hearing, and proceeds to critique the vaidika practices of alcohol drinking, fornicating,12 and animal and other sacrifices. The discriminating man must follow the sect that prohibits such transgressive practices. Vasubhūti is convinced and, though he dies on the journey during an attack by robbers, he dies an initiated Jaina and is reborn as a celestial.

Both Vasubhūti and Dayāmitra act from generous impulses in attempting to reclaim each other from what they see as false sects. While Vasubhūti exhorts Dayāmitra in a straightforward manner (1.110–1.114), Dayāmitra does not dare do the same. He can only adopt indirect methods and lure him to the Jaina sect by appealing to his greed and arrogance. Nayasēna tells us this is because of the depth of Vasubhūti’s delusion, and uses an abundance of proverbs to frame the situation. Be that as it may, it is evident that Dayāmitra, as well as Nayasēna, implicitly acknowledges the reality that people would not be persuaded by straightforward exhortations to become Jainas, nor were Jainas in a powerful enough social position to impose their beliefs upon non-Jainas, or to set aside socially normative brahmanism.

Viśvānulōma (2.159–2.231): The brahmin Viśvānulōma and the Jaina merchant Dhanvantari are good friends who fall into bad ways, are exiled, and take to robbery on a large scale. Viśvānulōma persuades Dhanvantari to stop keeping Jaina company since it interferes with their pursuits. One day, they shelter and fall asleep in a Jina temple where a Jaina sage is preaching a sermon. Dhanvantari awakens to hear the sermon and is drawn back to the Jaina sect. As a consequence, he experiences several episodes of good luck, becomes more devout with each episode, and he eventually becomes a Jaina ascetic. Viśvānulōma too becomes an ascetic, but not a Jaina one. In their subsequent births, both are born as celestials—Acyutēndra Amitaprabha and the Vyantaradēva Vidyutprabha, respectively—the former having a higher status due to the difference in their ascetic merit. The two celestials fall into an argument about the relative merit of Jaina and non-Jaina ascetic practice. Vidyutprabha boasts of the well-known brahmanical sage Jamadagni and they decide to put him to the test. Predictably, Jamadagni fails. Next, Amitaprabha challenges Vidyutprabha to corrupt even a householder among the Jainas, which Vidyutprabha fails to do.

Viśvānulōma and Dhanvantari are both sinners who are redeemed by renunciation, but Dhanvantari’s Jaina asceticism yields better supra-mundane results than Viśvānulōma’s non-Jaina one. Further, non-Jaina ascetics such as Jamadagni are in general imperfect in their renunciation, whereas even Jaina laymen are unshakeable in their vows. We can see here that Nayasēna combats the suggestion that all ascetics are equally worthy of worship. The fact that a man is Jaina is inherently more honourable than that he is an ascetic.

Puṣpadāḍa (7.124–7.241): One day, the prince-sage Vāriṣēṇa hears that his childhood friend, the brahmin Puṣpadāḍa, has married, and decides to rescue him as a true friend should. He takes Puṣpadāḍa away from his new bride and causes him to undergo Jaina initiation. Puṣpadāḍa, though secretly unwilling, is yet afraid to oppose Vāriṣēṇa. Puṣpadāḍa’s unwillingness is not unknown to Vāriṣēṇa, but he is determined to rescue his friend, and for twelve years tirelessly taunts and preaches at him to engage in asceticism, warning him against women and the impermanence of worldly pleasures. He goes so far as to take Puṣpadāḍa back to his former palace to show him the numerous beautiful wives he himself has discarded, and shows Puṣpadāḍa how inferior his own wife is in comparison to them. And, indeed, Puṣpadāḍa’s bride, who has become old and ugly in the intervening period, also repudiates him harshly.13 Nayasēna tells us Puṣpadāḍa is humiliated into repentance and becomes a devout Jaina.

This tale sits uneasily alongside repeated exhortations to the audience to investigate and deliberate before adopting the Jaina sect, both in this text (4.33–4.53, 11.32–11.53) and in others. It must be emphasised that Nayasēna intends no irony at all in the above narrative, and we must understand this tale as a straightforward one, full of genuine sectarian feeling on the part of Vāriṣēṇa, though we are at a loss as to see the justice in Vāriṣēṇa’s importunities, and find ourselves in sympathy with poor Puṣpadāḍa. As to the role his brahmin status plays in this tale, we can only conclude that it is a label intended to ‘other’ the imperfect renunciate, rather than any deeper attempt to engage with non-Jainas.

Sōmadatta (8.06–8.94): The brahmin Sōmadatta encounters the Jaina sage Sumati while looking for an out-of-season mango to satisfy the pregnancy cravings of his wife. Sōmadatta hears Sumati recite the description of heaven in the Trilōkaprajñapti,14 and since he is learned in Sanskrit, understands it and recalls his past birth as a celestial and the pleasures of heaven; he decides to abandon saṁsāra and becomes a Digambara monk.

Meanwhile, his kin grieve at the loss of Sōmadatta to the ascetic way of life; this is, of course, the fatal attraction of the Jaina sect to those who feel entrapped in the life of a householder. But, they do not believe that a learned brahmin could actually abandon his high status in society; perhaps Sōmadatta remained with the sage in order to acquire magical powers (8.61). His wife attempts to reclaim him, reproaching him for thoughtlessly rejecting his fortunate birth as a brahmin, casting off the markers of brahmanism, destroying his reputation and the prosperity of his family. The scholarship and lineages of Jainas are in no way superior to those of brahmins. But, he need not remain in this sorry state, thinking he has fallen from caste; he may still return to his brahmin status by prāyaścitta (penance) and by performing hōma. He should not destroy his great fame, livelihood, women, children, and kin and become an object of ridicule.

But, Sōmadatta remains unmoved, abusing brahmins as “wicked, lazy, addicted to the seven vices, fornicators, violent men who speak ill of others; who, unable to practice Jaina self-denial, call the Jaina sect foul” (8.75), closing his ears to false sects and valorising the Jaina sect (8.80–8.88). His kin attempt to physically drag him away, but are unable to move him. They fall back on unavailing abuse, calling him a pātaka who has fallen from caste, misled by Digambaras, and has imperilled his hereafter. They leave, abandoning his newborn son at his feet.

Nayasēna does not explain why a celestial should be born as the brahmin Sōmadatta, but he certainly does not see it as a birth of lower spiritual status than being born a Jaina, indicating that there was probably a significant number of Jainas who claimed simultaneous brahmin and Jaina status.15 The importunities of Somadatta’s wife and kin are a reflection of social anxiety arising from the loss of productive male members who renounce family to become Jaina monks; there is also an explicit reference to the loss of brahmanical livelihood, indicating that Jaina conversion probably led to contested claims to shares in agrahāra land called vṛtti (8.72).

3.1.3. The Irredeemable Vaiṣṇava Brahmin

If the boundary between Jaina and vaidika brahmin was somewhat porous, and could be reclaimed from time to time, such was definitely not the case with the Vaiṣṇava brahmin. We meet two Vaiṣṇava brahmins in Dharmāṁṛtam: Nārāyaṇadatte and Bali.

Nārāyaṇadatte (4.191–4.259): Nārāyaṇadatte, originally a Jaina, is the childhood friend of the Jaina Prabhāvati, queen of Oddāyana of Rauravapura. Nārāyaṇadatte is widowed while still young, studies tarka and śāstra, and, calling herself Paṇḍite, wanders around claiming to be celibate (brahmacāriṇi) and to possess the power to curse and bestow boons. People worship her as a guru. One day, she decides to convert Prabhāvati to her sect. She meets Prabhāvati, who allows her into her presence as a fellow Jaina out of sectarian kinship, but repudiates her when she realises Nārāyaṇadatte is no longer a Jaina. The humiliated Nārāyaṇadatte plots Prabhāvati’s downfall. She decides to arrange Prabhāvati’s abduction by the lecherous non-Jaina king Caṇḍapradyōta of Māḷava. Caṇḍapradyōta besieges Rauravapura when Oddāyana is away, and sends an embassy of love to Prabhāvati, which she rejects. When the rejected Caṇḍapradyōta attacks, Prabhāvati is succoured by the celestial Vāsava, but not before she passes a chastity test set by him.

We must infer from the name Nārāyaṇadatte and from her learning in tarka and śāstra that Nayasēna refers to a Vaiṣṇava and probably a brahmin individual. But, there are several pejorative elements in this portrayal: Nārāyaṇadatte is a widow, and one who is given to wandering around on her own, as well as to making tall claims. In Nayasēna’s description, her claims of celibacy16 are suspect, as are her claims of scholarship and divine power, though she achieves a measure of fame among commoners.17 She approaches Prabhāvati with evil intent: she intends to destroy Prabhāvati’s Jaina virtue before converting her. When Prabhāvati realises Nārāyaṇadatte is no longer a Jaina, she does not consider reclaiming her, even though Nārāyaṇadatte is a childhood friend and a former Jaina. Nārāyaṇadatte, in turn, reacts out of spiteful anger when Prabhāvati shuns her, making no attempt to convert Prabhāvati, and her activities thereafter are all criminal.

Bali: The whole of Chapter 9 is devoted to the activities of Bali, the Vaiṣṇava brahmin minister to the kings Jayavarma and Padma, and his defeat by the Jaina sage Viṣṇukumāra. The sequence of events begins with a sectarian debate between Bali and the Jaina sage Akampana, staged by Jaina king Jayavarma in Ujjayini at Bali’s request. When the assembly acclaims Akampana as victor at the conclusion of the debate, Bali is enraged and abuses him, accusing him of black magic. The king expels Bali and his family from the kingdom, prompting Bali to swear revenge on Akampana. He goes to Hastināpura and finds employment with king Padma, and becomes a close confidant of the king.

Once again, we must infer from the name Bali and that of his brothers, Śukra, Bṛhaspati, and Prahlāda, that he is a Vaiṣṇava, and from indirect references to his knowledge of veda and śāstra that he is a brahmin. Though Bali is indicated to be a Vaiṣṇava brahmin, his positions in the debate with Akampana do not reflect either brahmanism or Vaiṣṇavism. His contribution to the debate consists merely of challenges to Jaina sectarian beliefs, which Akampana defends at length. On the other hand, Akampana does not pose any challenges to Bali’s putative sectarian stance either. Clearly, Nayasēna does not intend his audience to read this episode as a doctrinal contest, but a sectarian one, in which Jainas are responding to criticism.

Later, when Akampana comes to Hastināpura, Bali plots revenge. He undertakes a sacrifice for public benefaction, and requires the king to handover sovereignty to him for fifteen days. Bali expels Jaina sages from the city for the duration of the sacrifice and traps Akampana in a cave and attempts to smoke him to death. Akampana is rescued by the intervention of the Jaina sage Viṣṇukumāra, who possesses the eight magical powers (aṣṭasiddhi). Viṣṇukumāra informs king Padma of Bali’s evil intentions, who hears it with outrage. Viṣṇukumāra then assumes the guise of a brahmin dwarf wearing Vaiṣṇava sectarian marks, and re-enacts the purāṇic episode of Viṣṇu-Vāmana demanding three feet of land from king Bali. The minister Bali, of course, cannot see through Viṣṇukumāra’s disguise and treats his request with sincere devotion due to the deity Viṣṇu manifesting as the Vaiṣṇava brahmin. At the end of the episode, Viṣṇukumāra asserts his dominance, just as Viṣṇu did, by expanding his physical presence to gigantic proportions. The celestials intervene to calm things down, Bali is expelled from Hastināpura, and Akampana is rescued from his cave.

This episode can only be understood as a Jaina subversion of the tale of Vāmana, an incarnation of Viṣṇu. The repeated portrayal of Bali as a minister in a position of secular power and authority able to control multiple kings is perhaps a reflection of the social reality of the times. Brahmins with Vaiṣṇava affiliations or leanings were on the rise in Karnataka during the twelfth century.18 The implication of the episode of Viṣṇukumāra and Bali is equally clear: Vaiṣṇava brahmins were seen as a threat to the existence of the Jaina community; they could not be conciliated or converted; and they could only be opposed and defeated, even if only in the pages of Jaina texts.

3.1.4. The Missing Śaiva and the Anachronistic Buddhist

Dharmāṁṛtam contains some references, usually critical or pejorative, to Śaivas—such as the ascetic devotees of Mailāra, who strike themselves (3.169), and their transgressive consumption of alcohol (9.94)—but these are far fewer and far less direct than pejorative references to brahmins of all kinds.

Nayasēna appears to criticise Śaivas indirectly when the Jaina sage Muṇḍiyaputra visits king Śrēṇika and preaches to prince Vāriṣēṇa. In making the case that one should carefully examine and compare sectarian beliefs propagated by various sects, he says only a fool trusts thieves, cowards, beggars, and the shameless, for these are sinful qualities, even in men. He criticises gods who are ascetic but not celibate, who fornicate (7.38–7.41). One may infer that some of this refers to Śiva’s transgressive behaviour and playful harassment of his devotees, but there is nothing overt in Nayasēna’s criticism.

Similarly, when the sage Akampana engages in sectarian debate with the minister Bali, he says the worship of wicked spirits and planets and the conduct of Śaivas are not consonant with scriptural authority (9.101). Among wicked spirits, he cites Ekkalaviri (Ekkaladēvi), Banadabbe (possibly the goddess Banaśaṅkari identified with Pārvatī), Mahālakṣmi of Kollāpura (both Śaiva and Vaiṣṇava at different times), Kāmakōṭi of Kañci (identified with Pārvatī), the innumerable demonic hordes (bhūtakōṭi) of Koḷḷipāke (a Kāpālika-Śaiva centre), the śākini Mārikabbe of Piṭṭāpura, Maṅgaḷādēvi of Poṇarmale, and Kāmākṣi of Mailāpura (identified with Pārvatī). Many of these are, recognisably, deities in the Śaiva pantheon. Akampana is specifically criticising the worship of these deities with transgressive offerings by people of the higher castes. However, later in the same passage, he claims that Kāḷāmukha-Śaivas19 also reject transgressive practices such as using leather containers (for liquids), implying that some among the Śaivas live pure lives, just as the Jainas do.

A third reference to Śaivas occurs in the tale of Kapāli, who is killed by his pet elephant (12.123–12.137). Kapāli is described as a Śaiva ascetic (gorava) and a beggar (bhikṣuka) who lives in a hermitage in the forest, but the tale has nothing to do with the Śaiva status of Kapāli, nor is he criticised in it.

We are left to wonder why Nayasēna ignores Śaivas, perhaps his greatest sectarian opponents in twelfth-century Deccan, and even defends the Kāḷāmukhas. This is even more surprising given how violently anti-Jaina the Śaivas appear to be.20 Set against this absence of the contemporary and ubiquitous Śaiva is the anachronistic presence of the Buddhist characters Buddhadāsi and Saṅghaśrī.

Buddhadāsi (8.156–8.232): Buddhadāsi, the adopted daughter of a Buddhist monk, marries Pūtivāhana, king of Dakṣiṇamadhure (Madurai), who already has a devout Jaina queen Ōhile. Ōhile habitually oversees a religious procession of the Jina in the streets of Madurai during the Nandīśvara festival. Buddhadāsi decides to disrupt it and oversee a procession of the Buddha instead. Ōhile is enraged at the upstart pretensions of the new concubine,21 abusing Buddhadāsi’s father as a beggar. She decides to uphold the rights of the Jina, clan deity of the Pāṇḍya kings of Madurai, and so the partisans of the two sects will fight it out in the streets. She enlists the Jaina sectarian warrior sage Vajrakumāra, who mobilises a vidyādhara army from the north to ensure the continuity of Jina worship in Madurai. When the army reaches Madurai, the Buddhists are cowed and give way. The brave Jaina queen Ōhile defeats Buddhadāsi, and even the fickle Pāṇḍya king who supported the wrong woman and, therefore, the wrong god. The Jina procession is performed with great pomp, almost the equal of a samavasaraṇa.

There is no evidence of active Buddhism in twelfth-century Madurai. However, there is a much retold tale, with a contemporary account in Periyapurāṇam, a twelfth-century Tamil Śaiva hagiography. It describes the conversion of Jaina Madurai by the Śaiva saint Campantar, in the course of which several thousand Jainas are killed. In a mirroring of Nayasēna’s tale, the champion of Śaivas in Madurai is the Pāṇḍya queen of the day called Maṅkaiyarkkaraci, who invites Campantar to the city to cure the king who is ill, his Jaina preceptors having failed to do so.22

It is clear from this that it is the upstart Śaivas of the Periyapurāṇam who masquerade as Buddhists in Nayasēna’s Dharmāṁṛtam. We may speculate, based on this, that the social dominance of Kāḷāmukha-Śaiva monastic establishments in twelfth-century Deccan23 may have restrained Nayasēna from making too direct a criticism.

Saṅghaśri (11.05–11.182): The Jaina king Dhanada of Veṅgi marries a Buddhist beauty Kamalaśri. Her father Saṅghaśri intends to convert Dhanada, but is himself persuaded to become Jaina by means of a miracle. Though he becomes Jaina and even scorns his previous Buddhist guru, he is inveigled back into his old sect by blandishments of worldly pleasure. Dhanada learns of Saṅghaśri’s fall from grace and tries in vain to reclaim him. Saṅghaśri goes so far as to deny the miracle he has witnessed. As a result, he is blinded by the enraged city-goddess and dies a miserable death. The tale of the Buddhist Saṅghaśri is essentially one of Jaina recidivism, and there is nothing particularly Buddhist about Saṅghaśri. Once again, we can only conclude that it is a label intended to ‘other’ the imperfect convert. But, in the conversion and reconversion of Saṅghaśri, we can see the sectarian ferment of the twelfth century playing out. By Nayasēna’s own telling, the Jainas are not winning this competition for followers, and can only curse the backsliders with horrible deaths.

3.1.5. Other Sectarian Preoccupations

Defence of Digambara practice: Sometimes, the sectarian ‘other’ is faceless, but the struggle of the twelfth-century Digambara Jaina is no less poignant because he lacks an identifiable tormentor. A case in point is the beleaguered sage Akampana, whom we encountered earlier in the tale of the Vaiṣṇava brahmin Bali. During the sectarian debate (9.73–9.95), Akampana defends the Digambara ascetic practice of nakedness, responding to the criticism that the sight of Jaina ascetics brings bad luck.24 He says nirgrantha25 is the joyful mark of the Jina, which is borne by everything delightful, beneficial, pure: the earth, children, sun, cows, clouds, sky, sea, horses, fire, trees, hills, and naked wife one copulates lovingly with at night. The sight of Digambara ascetics does not kill cattle or children, prevent fires from burning, food from cooking, or water or food from tasting good. Nor do those who live, never having set eyes on a Digambara ascetic, avoid hardships, for even brahmins who live in agrahāras cannot avoid worry, disease, death, and destitution. He also defends other markers of Digambara asceticism: the peacock feather broom, mat, begging bowl, the practice of not bathing or brushing the teeth, not drinking water after vomiting, eating standing up, plucking our hair, etc. The poignancy of Akampana’s appeal appears to reflect Nayasēna’s lived experience of public opprobrium and abuse, and cannot fail to touch his audience.

Anxieties about sectarian survival: As sectarian competition intensified in the twelfth century, all sects began to propagate rules of endogamy and commensality.26 In the tale of Subandhuśri (10.14–10.110), her father, the devout Jaina Guṇapāla, prefers to abandon his pregnant wife, daughter, and extensive property to marry his daughter to the non-Jaina king. He is repelled by the proposal from a non-Jaina, but cannot refuse the king. He thinks it better to kill one’s daughter rather than marry her to a non-Jaina, for a Jaina who desires liberation must completely repudiate association with non-Jainas; a Jaina who intermarries with or even befriends a non-Jaina, attracted by worldly benefit, will certainly go to hell. His wife has even stricter sectarian standards: her husband will imperil her daughter’s future births and eventual liberation if he marries her to a non-Jaina; she threatens to become a nun if her husband accepts the king’s proposal. Guṇapāla congratulates himself on having such a devout Jaina wife, for the companionship of women who are not devout Jainas is ruinous to a man’s prospects of heaven and eventual liberation. Next, Guṇapāla tests his daughter; she prefers to be punished by her father than to marry the non-Jaina king. Unable to resolve the situation, Guṇapāla abandons his family and property and flees the city, leaving them to suffer their fate. The king learns of this and is surprised, for he is not opposed to the Jaina sect; in fact, Guṇapāla’s tenacity convinces him of the superiority of the Jaina sect. It is surprising that Guṇapāla makes no attempt to convert the king, in a text where there are many other tales in which Jainas actively convert others, but Nayasēna’s anxiety about social pressures such as exogamy that resulted in the loss of sectarian adherents and the shrinking of the community is evident in this tale.

It is perhaps a sign of the times that the text ends on a desponding note. Nayasēna describes the disaster that has befallen Jainas in the duṣṣama era of the avasarpiṇi half-cycle in the words of the sage Gurudatta, who, having attained kēvalajñāna, is preaching a sermon (14.145–14.153). The world has become unrighteous, people lack compassion and generosity, they are unobservant, they do not study the scriptures. Rains fail, crops are meagre, there is political and social disorder, people are poor and wealth-seeking, and they abandon the Jaina sect and rejoice in listening to wicked tales. Others suppress the Jaina sect, harass it, and prefer cruel sects. Men and women lack virtue, scholars lack learning, and merit goes unrewarded. The Jaina sect disappears while wicked sects flourish.

3.2. Brahmaśiva, Samayaparīkṣe

3.2.1. The Poet, His Period, His Text

Brahmaśiva has been the subject of much speculation in modern Kannada scholarship.27 He calls himself Brahma (Brahmaśiva 2009: 1.57), Bamma (15.113), or Brahmadēva (chapter colophons), but not Brahmaśiva28 in Samayaparīkṣe. He tells us he is an ornament of the Vatsa gōtra, the son of Siṅgirāja of Poṭṭaḷageṟe, the grandson of the poet Pamparāja, and a friend of Aggaḷa. He is well versed in the practices of Saura and Kauḷōttara, and knowledgeable in the essence of veda, smṛti, and purāṇa. He was previously drawn to the Māhēśvara, but, unable to see benefit in it, subsequently entered into the Jaina sect and found delight in it. He is now a steadfast Jaina, a propagator of the Jaina sect, and a thunderbolt to the mountain that is false perception (1.57–1.60). There is nothing in the text to mark Brahmaśiva as a Jaina monk.

Poṭṭaḷageṟe is credibly identified with Paṭañceru near present-day Hyderabad; Pamparāja, the grandfather of Brahmaśiva, with the poet Nāgacandra (or Abhinavapampa), author of the Rāmacandracaritapurāṇam (c.1140CE); and Aggaḷa as the author of the Candraprabhapurāṇam (1189CE).29 Thus, there is scholarly consensus in dating Brahmaśiva and his text to the final years of the twelfth century.

Tārānātha is less certain about his claims of conversion from Śaiva to Jaina, since this claim rests on just one verse in the text (1.59), whereas his family is known to have been established as Jaina for at least three generations. Further, it is unclear whether Brahmaśiva had any kind of royal or other patronage; though he praises some rulers in his invocations as patrons of the Jaina sect, he does not claim them as patrons, and a virulent sectarian diatribe of this kind could hardly have had explicit royal patronage in a period when kings proudly proclaimed support for all sects in their inscriptions.30

Samayaparīkṣe is composed entirely in verse; the vast majority of them are in the kanda meter, though there are a fair number of vṛttas and some Sanskrit ślōkas. The verses are arranged loosely in fifteen thematic chapters called adhikāras, as is common in didactic śāstra texts.31 The text is polemical, but does not debate substantive matters of doctrine. It is a straightforward denunciation of non-Jaina sects and their practices and beliefs, interspersed with the partisan valorisation of the Jaina sect. The material is loosely structured, somewhat incoherent within chapters, and repetitive within and across chapters, leading one to wonder whether this text may have been an anthology composed by a composite author.

In the following paragraphs, I will discuss each sectarian ‘other’ addressed by Brahmaśiva. The reader may orient themself by referring to the plot summary in Appendix B.

3.2.2. The Śaiva ‘Other’, Who Is in Fact Jaina

Brahmaśiva excoriates the illogic of Śaiva myths: Śiva as a pillar of light, his fornication with the wives of the sages in the pine forest,32 his transgressive accoutrements (skull begging bowl, animal hide garments, and snake and bone ornaments), his violence towards his devotees (Siriyāḷa, Arjuna, and Kaṇṇappa), his preference for the charnel-ground, his duplicity in both creating and destroying the world, his indeterminate gender, and his improbable feats and those of his family (such as the killing of Tāraka by the young Ṣaṇmukha, the burning of the three celestial cities by Śiva, and his wearing the moon and Gaṅga). These contradictory characterisations compounded by the inconsistent iconography of Śiva—both aniconic liṅga as well as anthropomorphic, as void as well as a manifestation composed of the eight elements33—are particularly problematic for Brahmaśiva. His devotees hide Śiva’s horrible nature by giving him euphemistic names. Finally, in a sleight of hand, Brahmaśiva claims it is the Jina who is the true Śiva34, for these names may be applied to the Jina without euphemism (8.03–8.110, 10.23–10.30, 10.65–10.83).

The improbable divinity of Śiva is buttressed by too much lying in Śaiva āgamas and hagiographies, which describe Śiva creating the universe from the void (10.15–10.22), devotees composing texts miraculously, going to heaven in their mortal bodies, and recuperating severed heads and limbs (9.12–9.29). Brahmaśiva also criticises the worship of Śaiva saints of dubious antecedents and for strange acts of devotion (9.99–9.100). Foolish devotees believe in miracle cures effected by Śiva in local temples (9.47–9.51). Brahmaśiva betrays no self-awareness of his own miraculous claims for Jaina temples (2.47–2.56).35 In fact, he goes further and coopts purāṇic heroes from Śaiva and other sources, as well as Śaiva holy places, as originally Jaina in character: Rāma, the Pāṇḍavas, Śrīśailam, Drākṣārāmam, Puligeṟe (2.57–2.87).

Brahmaśiva also criticises Śaiva ascetics. The goravas, Kāḷāmukhas, and Kaulas are criticised for transgressive dietary practices, addiction to physical hygiene, and imperfect celibacy (14.06–14.22, 14.55–14.60). They are criticised as aesthetes and libertines (6.28–6.47). Nor does Brahmaśiva spare lay Śaivas: they are lax in observance, unlike Jainas, for their gurus do not regulate their behaviour (14.23–14.40).

Popular religion as a sectarian threat: Brahmaśiva (like Nayasēna) also denounces the worship of non-purāṇic deities36, calling them wicked spirits/deities (koḻe deyvaṅgaḷ). He sometimes conflates their worship with Śaiva practice, indicating the degree to which contemporary Śaivas had coopted the worship of popular divinities, particularly goddesses, into the Śaiva pantheon (see discussion in Section 3.1.4 above). He denounces self-mutilation37 and suicide committed at temples of Śiva and transgressive goddesses as transactional exchanges of no soteriological value. He appears to blame women as the force behind this stream of popular religion (9.36–9.46, 9.84–9.132). He also rejects several objects of popular worship such as trees, cows, snakes, and household tools (9.52–9.83). Elsewhere, he criticises quack medicine, fertility cures, pilgrimage, and alchemy as superstition unworthy of Jainas, implicitly admitting that this practice, in fact, cut across sectarian boundaries (12.02–12.49).

3.2.3. The Brahmin ‘Other’, Who Is Also a Jaina

Brahmaśiva begins by telling us how Bharata created brahmins by initiating the best in each jāti as Jaina; thus, Jainas of all jātis are brahmins because of Bharata’s designation (See Pierce Taylor (Forthcoming) for a more detailed discussion). Since they are prohibited from violence, Jainas are worthy recipients of gifts, no matter their original jāti. And, the best among Jainas are, in fact, highborn brahmins. Naturally, brahmanical festivals too have Jaina origins (2.28–2.46). But, this claim was apparently insufficient to recast the lived experience of many others, for he goes on to criticise the notion of ‘high birth’ and brahmin claims to ritual purity by birth and brahmanical ritual; for Brahmaśiva, it is conduct that determines merit, and by that reckoning Jainas are intrinsically superior to brahmins based on their non-violence, cleanliness, and self-mortification (6.90–6.119, 11.130–11.139).

Brahmaśiva characterises the totems of brahmanical religion—Brahma, Sūrya, and Agni—as anāpta (8.130–135, 8.161–8.174, 8.183–8.186). He repudiates the origin claim of veda as without beginning, problematises the cryptic nature of veda, repudiates vedic exegesis as arbitrary, and thus vedic injunctions that justify brahmanical practice as lacking authority. He denounces the purāṇic practice of niyōga as fornication; ridicules purāṇic myths about the planets, mischaracterising them as brahmanical astrology; criticises brahmanical laws as laid out in didactic texts as if they were contemporary practice (11.02–11.28); and criticises the vedic prescription of animal sacrifice (11.98–11.112). He also criticises contemporary brahmanical practice, such as the illogicality of brahmanical funerary feasts, and the practice of collecting the bones of the cremated and immersing them in rivers (11.113–11.126).

He levels the charge of venality at brahmins and laments the folly of people who consider them worthy recipients of gifts (11.78–11.97). He highlights the dangers of giving to unworthy (non-Jaina, brahmin) recipients (7.69–7.72), and expands on it later in a lengthy denunciation: brahmanical gods are given to sin and so are their followers. He ends with a strong injunction not to feed brahmins, with Jinabrāhmaṇas being an exception (14.118–14.161).38

3.2.4. The Minor Vaiṣṇava ‘Other’

Brahmaśiva characterises Viṣṇu also as anāpta on account of his numerous incarnations (particularly the non-human ones), his cunning, and his self-degradation, but, surprisingly, claims that Viṣṇu too is the Jina.39 Brahmaśiva also points out certain inconsistencies in Vaiṣṇava purāṇas (8.136–8.156). The incarnations of Viṣṇu are a fertile theme for Brahmaśiva, and he returns to it in a subsequent passage (10.84–10.104). Apart from one other verse criticising Bhāgavatas (Vaiṣṇava mendicant ascetics, 14.61), Brahmaśiva has no more to say about the Vaiṣṇava other.

This is puzzling, since Vaiṣṇavas have gained strength in the Deccan since the time of Nayasēna. One possible explanation might be local: Poṭṭaḷageṟe is a region more under the threat of Śaivas than Vaiṣṇava. There is contemporary Śaiva textual evidence to indicate that they were contesting Jainas in Poṭṭaḷageṟe in this period.40 It may be that Poṭṭaḷageṟe and Brahmaśiva were far enough away from royal courts and Vaiṣṇava influence for them not to figure dominantly in his immediate sectarian landscape. Another explanation may lie in the possible ‘anthology’ character of Samayaparīkṣe: interpolation and redactions are impossible to detect, nor can they be completely ruled out, given the incoherence of the text.

3.2.5. Partisanship of Other Sects as a Threat to Jainas

Sectarian partisanship and conflict was clearly a lived experience for Brahmaśiva, for he revisits the theme repeatedly from various angles in Samayaparīkṣe. He describes the claims of both Śaivas and Vaiṣṇavas as they attempt to subordinate each others’ deity to their own. He tells us Śaivas have coopted the brahmanical deities Sūrya and Agni. But, the Śaivas are themselves coopted by Kaulas. The Jina alone stands unsubordinated and sovereign (8.111–8.123). He returns to the theme later in the chapter to describe the partisan devotion of Vaiṣṇavas and Śaivas that does not question the illogic in their beliefs (8.157). Though their own scriptures describe the horrible nature of their deities, the people of these sects are enraged if others mention it (8.216–8.220).

Then, there is the matter of the Śiva–Viṣṇu composite, Harihara. Vaiṣṇava brahmins claim that Viṣṇu resides within Śiva and vice versa, according to the veda. But, though they hold that Śiva and Viṣṇu are identical, they repudiate Śaiva ascetics; nor do the Śaivas agree with the Vaiṣṇavas. Brahmaśiva slyly asks whether, as devotees of the two great friends Śiva and Viṣṇu, they should continue, thus, at loggerheads. He concludes that their friendship is based on mutual abuse, reflecting the behaviour of their deities, who often work at cross purposes in purāṇic myths; after all, Śiva’s essential function is to destroy Viṣṇu’s work of sustaining the world (10.53–10.64).

If sectarian conflict between Śaivas and Vaiṣṇavas is a matter for Jaina scorn, the repudiation of Jainas by other sects is a matter of Jaina survival. In an admission of the greater social power of non-Jainas, Brahmaśiva says ‘might does not make right’, and that lies propagated by false sects cannot be left unchallenged. But, many, even learned people, in contemporary society do not do so. It is Jainas who are uniquely qualified to denounce false sects because they stand on the moral high ground of Jaina belief and practice (11.151–11.159). Unfortunately, though others may praise the Jaina sect, they do not follow it, for Brahmaśiva tells us one may convert 100 people to Vaiṣṇava, 1000 to Buddhist, 2000 to Śaiva, but not even 1 to Jaina (15.66–15.78).

3.2.6. Anxieties About Sectarian Survival

Brahmaśiva repeatedly makes the case for sectarian exclusivity from many angles. He outlines the sectarian obligations of a good Jaina, both within and outside the community. A Jaina must show sectarian kinship (dharmavātsalya) exclusively towards other Jainas, succour the unfortunate Jaina, correct an erring one, and perform obligatory acts of charity within the community. He should reject the doctrines of other sects and conform exclusively to Jaina teachings. He has an obligation to convert others. But, he must not succour members of other sects, for they will never succour anyone (4.31–4.89).

Brahmaśiva interprets the Jaina prescription to abandon the eight prides—of birth, lineage, learning, wealth, status, beauty, ascetic merit, and physical power—as an obligation to promote intra-sectarian equality (4.101–4.119). He insists on the obligatory and exclusive worship of the Jina by all members of a Jaina household (including non-Jaina members), and the social shunning of followers of other sects (4.120–4.138). He believes women to be inherently opposed to Jaina observance and renunciation, and to be instinctively partial to Śaiva deities and ascetics. He argues for strict Jaina endogamy, saying women brought up in non-Jaina families cannot be expected to uphold the Jaina sect. He argues that male heads of families should enforce Jaina observance on all family members, and extolls the virtues of a Jaina wife (5.92–5.134). He articulates the obligations of a layman to support a Jaina ascetic, disregarding his jāti (5.135–144), and goes so far as to advocate prioritising the sect over the family (5.87–91; 5.145–5.153).

Chapter 13 is titled ‘a description of wicked sects’ and is an articulation of sectarian anxiety devoid of any niceties. Unlike other chapters, instead of beginning with an invocation to the Jina, it reminds us that karma punishes people, and launches into a diatribe in which brahmins and Śaiva are conflated with each other. They are deluded and repudiate Jainas, are unreasoning and quarrelsome, and claim to be as pure as Jainas. Claims that Śaivas and vaidikas are more numerous and attract the support of rulers and the powerful are false. Claims that being a Jaina impoverishes one are false. Claims that Jinabrāhmaṇas have fallen from caste are false.

Brahmaśiva claims Jainas are being forcibly converted to Śaivism41 and bemoans the fact that people prefer Śaivas, though they indulge in transgressive practices while shunning Jainas, and mischaracterise their high-minded ascetic practices as uncouth. Moreover, Śaivas actively persecute Jainas and even people who are sympathetic to Jainas. Jainas are forced to observe their vows in secret for fear of persecution. Brahmaśiva can only wind up the chapter calling down futile imprecations upon his persecutors. Zydenbos (1985) suggests that Jaina ritual, with its emphasis on morality and self-denial, was unattractive compared to the emotional exuberance of bhakti religions. When we consider, alongside this, the allure of wealth and prosperity held out by the Śaiva and Vaiṣṇava temples in the twelfth century—with their elaborate temple rituals, large landed estates, donations, revenues, and public expenditure42—people switching allegiance from Jaina to Śaiva or Vaiṣṇava, a fact acknowledged by Brahmaśiva himself, was perhaps unsurprising.43

3.3. Vṛttavilāsa, Dharmaparīkṣe

3.3.1. The Poet, His Period, His Text

Vṛttavilāsa names himself the author of Dharmaparīkṣe (Vṛttavilāsa 1982: 1.34, chapter colophons). There is little biographical or social detail in the text, and the name ‘Vṛttavilāsa’ may in fact be a pseudonym, since the final verse of each chapter applies the adjective vṛttavilāsa to the protagonist of the text, Manōvēga. Vṛttavilāsa does not cite earlier poets, nor is he cited by later poets. Among the invocations, he mentions Māghaṇandi of Balātkāragaṇa44 (1.22), and cites Amarakīrti as his guru (1.38, chapter colophons); these individuals have been dated based on epigraphical evidence to 1253CE and 1273CE, respectively. In addition to this, two manuscripts of the text are dateable to 1402CE and 1420CE. Based on all this, the Kannada scholarly tradition dates him to c.1360CE.45

There are many points of deliberate obscurity about the poet and his text. There is nothing in the text to indicate where he lived and wrote, or whether he was a Jaina layman or monk. On balance, he may not have been a monk, since he himself claims only that he is of good character and a scholar (6.42, 8.31, 9.74, 10.98). Dharmaparīkṣe is a campūkāvya and Vṛttavilāsa employs many different meters, some quite rare in Kannada literature. But, this is a period when campū has fallen out of style and the ṣaṭpadi meter is being used widely.46 Dharmaparīkṣe is significantly intertextual with Hariṣēṇa’s tenth-century Apabhramsha text, and Amitagati’s eleventh-century Sanskrit text, both of the same name; though he does not credit them, Vṛttavilāsa says he reformulated the Sanskrit version (1.37).47 But, unlike them, Vṛttavilāsa is writing a mahākāvya and, therefore, includes many tropes such as descriptions of sunrise, sunset, cityscapes, feasts, and a lengthy description of a music and dance performance in a royal court. Dharmaparīkṣe consists of ten chapters called āśvāsa, each dedicated to a day in the life of the protagonist.

The poet calls his text a Jaina religious tale (1.35); it is also an act of public benefaction for the sectarian community (2.28, 10.97). The main characters are Manōvēga, a devout Jaina vidyādhara prince nominally intent on converting his friend of similar but subordinate social status, Pavanavēga, by making him witness a series of daily debates with the brahmins of Pāṭalīputra, and lecturing him on Jaina doctrine in the evenings. Pavanavēga, as well as the Pāṭalīputra brahmins, are mostly spectators in this text. We may compare Pavanavēga’s experience with the forced conversion tale of Vāriṣēṇa and Puṣpadāḍa in Dharmāmṛtam, and measure the fall in status of Jaina sectarian warriors in the space of two centuries by the fact that they are forced to use persuasion instead of compulsion.

Both the protagonist and antagonists in Dharmaparīkṣe bear no obvious relation to contemporary society, and the text reads like a series of fables. It is also a very performative text—Vṛttavilāsa’s criticism of the sectarian ‘other’ is pointed but not harsh, and Manōvēga makes a deliberate point of conciliating his Pāṭalīputra audience and obtaining their approbation at the end of each day’s performance in the form of a certificate of victory (jayapatra)—but it is a biting farce that is being performed. In Vṛttavilāsa’s language, the emerging register of modern Kannada can be detected, but the old has not disappeared; he uses more Sanskritised Kannada (as well as citing more Sanskrit verses) and far fewer proverbs and idiomatic and colloquial expressions than Nayasēna.

In the following paragraphs, I will discuss each sectarian ‘other’ addressed by Vṛttavilāsa. The reader may orient themself by referring to the plot summary in Appendix C.

3.3.2. The Brahmin ‘Other’, Who Is Vulnerable to Logic

The frame narrative of the various tales is Manōvēga’s debate with the Pāṭalīputra brahmins, towards whom he ‘performs’ fear and appeasement. The caveat tales with which Vṛttavilāsa begins the chapters are themselves criticisms, though the protagonists in these tales are not always brahmins. Manōvēga obliges the Pāṭalīputra brahmins to deny these criticisms before he proceeds with the main tale of the day. There are nineteen caveat tales that level implied criticism at brahmins as follows:

• violent partisans (the merchant Madhukaragati, who is beaten up by partisans, 2.39–2.42),
• who dispense with truth, being blinded by partisanship (the village head Bahudhani, who disregards the foul behaviour of his favourite wife, 2.44–2.65),
• are self-referential (the frog in the well, 3.10),
• vengeful (the wicked village chief Vaṅka, who plots revenge even in death, 3.11–3.13),
• wilfully irrational (the foolish old brahmin Bhūtamati, who ignores concrete evidence, 3.14–3.22),
• foolishly self-destructive (the fighter Guḍabhūti, who breaks his own teeth because they bit his tongue, 4.09–4.11),
• spiteful (the merchant Caṇḍavēga, who could not bear his neighbour’s good fortune, 4.11–4.15),
• unwilling to engage in rational inquiry (king Guṇavarma and his disbelieving minister, 5.05–5.08),
• unwilling to countenance truth (king Durdara, who threatens to punish truth-tellers, 5.09–5.10),
• blame others for their own shortcomings (the noseless Kāpiḷa, who thinks the mirror is defective, 6.10–6.12),
• are blind to justice in upholding the law (king Pāpi, who kills innocent people to avenge the dead thief, 6.13–6.15),
• rush to judgment (the hasty king, who destroys the amṛtaphala tree, 7.04),
• are ignorant (the tōmara, who does not know how milk is produced and beats his cows, 8.07–8.09),
• unsophisticated (Hari, who cuts down the agaru plantation for firewood, 8.11–8.17),
• lacking in judgement (the washerman, who mistakes sandalwood for kindling, 9.05–9.10)
• and utterly foolish because they fight over needless topics, are unwilling to take a stand even when in danger, are manipulated by their subordinates to their own detriment, are stubborn to the point of self-harm, and fail to protect themselves out of cowardice (four tales of men who fall out over the blessing of a sage and compete to be the biggest fool; the first lets himself be blinded needlessly, the second lets his wives break his legs, the third lets himself be robbed, and the fourth lets himself be disfigured, 9.11–9.30).

The ridicule of brahmanical purāṇic tales as a way to collectively ‘other’ non-Jainas: The vast majority of purāṇic episodes ridiculed by Manōvēga are venerated by vaidika brahmins and Śaivas, as well as Vaiṣṇavas. This allows Vṛttavilāsa to criticise his sectarian opponents without having to name any group; this is crucial given the dangerous times Jainas lived in under the early years of the Vijayanagara dynasty, as we have seen in Śravaṇabeḷgoḷa #475.

For instance, the tale of the ascetic Māṇḍavya in Chapter 3 is a frame narrative that incorporates general ridicule as well as the separate cycles of abuse of Śiva, Viṣṇu, etc. The tale begins with an account of brahmins refusing to eat with the childless renunciate Māṇḍavya. They tell him to marry and beget a son before he can be admitted to their company. This allows Vṛttavilāsa to ridicule brahmanical prescriptions on the remarriage of women (3.28–3.31). Māṇḍavya marries his sister, the prostitute Ḍiṇḍibhe (an echo of Brahma marrying his daughter, the promiscuous Sarasvati, who resides on the tongues of poets), and fathers Chāye. Once, Māṇḍavya and his wife want to go on pilgrimage, but face a dilemma about where to leave their daughter. This allows Vṛttavilāsa to ridicule Śiva and Viṣṇu as unsuitable custodians (discussed below). Among other unsuitable deities are the libertine Brahma (3.67–3.100), whose lust at the sight of Girije during her marriage to Śiva causes him to ejaculate in various places, giving birth to Agastya from the pot, Vālkhilya and seven crores of sages from Nandin’s hoof, Vālmīki from the anthill, Bhūriśravas from the ash heap, Śalya from the fence of thorny shrub, Ūrvaśi (unclear how), Śakuni from a bird, and Padme from a lotus in a pond, whom Brahma marries. To interrupt their idyll, the scandalised gods send gandharvas, who sing the Gāyatri (hymn). Brahma abandons Padme for fear of criticism and undertakes tapas to become Indra and enjoy celestial women instead. So, Indra sends the apsare Tilōttame to interrupt Brahma’s tapas. The lecherous Brahma then grows multiple heads so that he can stare at Tilōttame without moving, as she dances all around him. Next, Brahma mates with a female bear in desperation, begetting Jāmbūnada, then Vasiṣṭha from the prostitute Ūrvaśi outside Amarāvati. Vasiṣṭha begets Śakuni upon the Cāṇḍāla woman Akṣamāle, Śakuni begets Parāśara upon a low-caste woman in Gautamagrāma, Parāśara begets Vyāsa upon Matsyagandhi, and Vyāsa begets the Kuru princes. Brahma is particularly useful for Vṛttavilāsa’s farce since he is never actually worshiped by anyone, and yet, as a deity he is an object of veneration in theory.

Then, Māṇḍavya considers and rejects the libertines Candra, Indra, and Sūrya (3.105–3.110) as likely custodians of Chāye, for Candra fornicates with the wife of Viśvāmitra, Indra fornicates with Ahalye, and Sūrya fornicates with Kunti. Finally, Māṇḍavya leaves his daughter with Yama (3.111–3.119), but he too turns out to be a fornicator. Yama mates with Chāye at night, keeping her in his stomach during the day. One day, when he goes to bathe in the Gaṅgā, he regurgitates Chāye, leaving her on the riverbank. She is spotted by Agni, who mates with her with the help of Vāyu. Afraid of Yama, Chāye hides Agni in her stomach, and mates with him while she is herself inside Yama’s stomach.

In Chapter 6, Vṛttavilāsa tells the tale of Śiva as a pillar of light. One day, Brahma and Viṣṇu argue about which of them is the greater, and Śiva decides to look into the matter. He tells Viṣṇu to find his feet and Brahma his head: he who returns first will be worshipped by the world. Vṛttavilāsa’s version of the tale follows the Śaiva tradition. The lying Brahma is cursed to live by begging, respected by no one. We should perhaps understand this as a reference to the brahmanical practice of brahmins living by begging for alms.

In Chapter 7, Vṛttavilāsa ridicules tales of the unnatural purāṇic births of Bhagīratha and Gāndhāri, the precocity of Abhimanyu as a foetus, the unnatural gestation of Indrajit by Maṇḍōdari, the unnatural delivery of Karṇa, who is born from Kunti’s ear, the unnatural maturity of Vyāsa as soon as he is born, and the virgin mother Kunti, who gives birth to Karṇa, and Candramati to Tṛṇabindu. This allows Vṛttavilāsa to present the ‘logical’ versions of these tales contained in the Jaina transcreations of the Mahābhārata, for instance, the natural but illegitimate birth of Karṇa. Similarly, in Chapter 8, Vṛttavilāsa ridicules the tale of Rāma bridging the sea to Laṅka, and introduces the Jaina version of the Rāmāyaṇa.

Finally, in Chapter 10, when the Pāṭalīputra brahmins have submitted to Manōvēga, he delivers a sermon in which the innate fault (svabhāvadōṣa)—of his audience, the Pāṭalīputra brahmins in the immediate context, but non-Jainas more generally—which renders them unable to comprehend the teachings of the Jina is criticised (10.03–10.20).

3.3.3. The Vaiṣṇava ‘Other’, Whom One Dare Not Criticise

The most remarkable aspect of Vṛttavilāsa’s ridicule of Vaiṣṇavas is how little there is of it in his text, especially compared with their ubiquity and sectarian power in fourteenth-century Deccan. Manōvēga refutes the divinity of Viṣṇu in three verses in Chapter 2, saying Viu Viṣṇu indulges in low pursuits beneath his dignity as a god, such as herding cows (in Gōkula), driving a chariot (for Arjuna), and acting as a messenger (of the Pāṇḍavas before the war), and he is repeatedly born and perishes for unclear reasons, perhaps in sport, or because he is subject to karma and saṁsāra (2.66–2.69). In Chapter 3, Māṇḍavya refuses to leave his daughter in the libertine Viṣṇu’s care (3.101–3.104), for, though he had 16,000 gōpis as wives when he lived in Dvārāvati, he was still dissatisfied and seduced two herder women, Rājamati and Candramati, in the Vindhya forest.48 Vṛttavilāsa’s restraint towards the Vaiṣṇava ‘other’ is no longer a mystery to us in light of Śravaṇabeḷgoḷa #475.

3.3.4. The Farcical Śaiva ‘Other’49

By contrast, Vṛttavilāsa’s criticism of Śaivas is quite scurrilous. In Chapter 2, Māṇḍavya also refuses to leave his daughter in the libertine Śiva’s care (3.33–3.66). Vṛttavilāsa then proceeds to ridicule several Śaiva myths.

The despoiling of Dakṣa’s sacrifice: Brahma (Dakṣa, son of Brahma, in the Śaiva tradition) begets a number of daughters and marries them to various gods. Then, craving meat, he institutes animal sacrifice. All the gods gather at Brahma’s sacrifice to eat meat. Śiva too comes with Sati, but Sati is seen with scratches all over her face and breasts and is laughed at by the gods. The embarrassed Brahma tells Śiva and Sati to go away. The quarrel escalates and culminates in Sati’s suicide and the despoiling of Brahma’s sacrifice.

The marriage of Girije, Śiva’s ardhanāri manifestation: Grief-maddened Śiva wanders the forest where the sages criticised him as a false renunciate. Śiva meets Girije, is attracted to her, and marries her. After a period of marital bliss, the lecherous Śiva encounters Gaṅge and begins an affair with her that he conceals from Girije,50 but she discovers it and he has to give her half his body as a marital compromise.

Śiva fornicates in Dāruka forest (6.15–6.18): Once Śiva goes to the Dāruka forest, where he sees the beautiful wife of an ascetic and seduces her by assuming a pleasing form. The husband grows suspicious because of her changed manner and sets a trap. When he catches Śiva, his curse makes Śiva’s penis fall off. In turn, Śiva’s curse causes the penis to adhere to the ascetic’s forehead. This is the origin of liṅga-worship among Śaivas, and the practice of wearing a personal liṅga tied to their forehead. The ascetic is unable to bear the burden of the liṅga, which grows bigger by the day, and goes to Śiva in Kailāsa seeking relief. Śiva tells him to install it in a womb and worship it ritually. This why Śaivas worship the liṅga installed on a yōnipīṭha.

The descent of Gaṅge (6.18–6.24): Vṛttavilāsa tells the tale of how the trinity (Brahma, Viṣṇu, and Śiva) came to fight over a woman. Śiva creates the universe from nothing, beginning with Brahma and Viṣṇu. But, there is no woman, and all three are tormented by lust. So, Viṣṇu draws a picture of a naked woman on the ground with chalk, Brahma breathes life into it, and Śiva clothes her. Then, they fight each other over her. The gods intervene and decide that Viṣṇu, who drew the picture, is the father, Brahma, who breathed life into her, is the mother, and Śiva, who clothed her, is the husband. But, Brahma and Viṣṇu are unable to bear this and importune her; she is embarrassed and in shame becomes the river Gaṅge and flows away.

In addition to this, there is a solitary verse (10.24) that defines samayamūḍha as the sectarian delusion consisting of the veneration of those with evil appearance (durvēśa); namely, Śaiva ascetics who smear themselves with ash, wear beads, skins, and bark/leaf loincloths, carry a lākula staff, cover themselves with red clay and soot, and wear garlands of bones.

By the middle of the fourteenth century, Kāḷāmukha–Śaiva networks atrophied and their temple estates in the Deccan degraded by several decades of intermittent warfare between the Hoysaḷas and the Sēvuṇas; these two dynasties themselves were destroyed by the end of this period by Sultanate incursions from the north. The Saṅgama dynasty of Vijayanagara was beginning to consolidate territory and was supported by the newly emerging sect of Mādhava Vidyāraṇya of Śṛṅgēri (which later became the advaita/smārta brahmin sect)51 and the Vaiṣṇavas of Tirupati, Śrīraṅgam, and other places. In this environment, it is not surprising that Vṛttavilāsa dared to be more direct in his ridicule of Śaiva compared to Nayasēna. Further, in keeping with the developments within the Śaiva tradition by the mid-fourteenth century, Vṛttavilāsa distinguished between Śaiva, who wore the liṅga on their bodies, and those who worshiped it on a yōnipīṭha.

3.3.5. The Unexpected Śvetāmbara ‘Other’

In Chapter 9, Manōvēga and Pavanavēga appear, disguised as Śvetāmbara Jaina monks from Gurjaradēśa. Unlike in Chapter 6, where they appear disguised as (Digambara) Jaina monks and immediately impress the Pāṭalīputra brahmins as divine agents (6.06), in Chapter 9, they receive a cooler reception. They tell the tale of how they became Śvetāmbara monks: they are the sons of the Śvetāmbara Raṭṭagāvuṇḍa of Vaṁśagrāha town in Gurjara country. They have many sheep; once, while herding them in the forest, they see a Bilva tree loaded with fruit, and want to eat them. But, unable to climb the tree, they sever their heads, which then climb up the tree and eat the fruit, filling the stomachs in their headless trunks lying on the ground below. Having eaten their fill, they reattach their heads to their trunks, but their sheep have scattered in the meantime. They are afraid to go home, fearing their father’s anger. Since they are already shaven-headed and wear white loincloths—the prescribed attire for Śvetāmbaras—they become Śvetāmbara monks. At the end of the day’s debate, when the the Pāṭalīputra brahmins concede defeat, Manōvēga realises that the brahmins have finally abandoned insincerity (kuṭilasvabhāva) and casts off his ‘Śvetāmbara’ disguise to preach a sermon. A thorough study of the interactions between Digambaras and Śvetāmbaras in the Deccan remains a desideratum, and beyond the scope of this essay. However, it is remarkable that Śvetāmbaras appear as one of the ‘disguises’ adopted by the protagonist, and that, when he preaches the final sermon, Vṛttavilāsa makes it clear Manōvēga has ‘cast’ it off.

4. Conclusions

Nayasēna’s Dharmāṁṛtam, with its tales of Jaina great men who exemplify the fourteen guṇasthānas, reads like a hagiography written when the sect still remembered its peak in twelfth-century Deccan society, though the heartfelt pleas he makes on behalf of Digambara ascetic practice clearly tell us they are no longer as popular or revered as they once were. We may surmise that, even by Nayasēna’s time, Digambara Jainas were in decline, based on the implicit attestation of Śravaṇabeḷgoḷa #77. The inscription has much to say about the sectarian battles fought by Malliṣēṇa’s predecessors in royal courts, but Malliṣēṇa himself is described only as an authority on scripture and a great ascetic. This surmise is also supported by Settar’s (1989, pp. 52–53) analysis of inscriptions. He tells us that, in the closing decades of the eleventh century, though the Hoysaḷa kings found it politic to patronise Jaina religious institutions because of their local popularity as well as the presence of Jaina military commanders in their court, they were already turning towards Vaiṣṇavism.52 However, the twelfth century saw a displacement of military commanders and local feudatories and royal officials by merchants as the chief donors at Śravaṇabeḷgoḷa. Settar (1989, pp. 58–63) traces the epigraphical history of transactions between merchants and Jaina monastic institutions in this period, which began well enough for the Jaina monks, but became exploitative and detrimental over time, to the point that Settar characterises the period from 1300CE onwards as a ‘Time of Trouble’, the inscriptions being of interest only because they show how “the pious struggled to preserve themselves and their religious interests” (Settar 1989, p. 71). We should be cautious about extrapolating the Śravaṇabeḷgoḷa case too far, but the sparser Jaina inscriptions of Muḷugunda show a similar tailing-off (Mallāpura 1975, pp. 79–83).

In the early twelfth century, though Nayasēna is despondent about the social status of Jaina monks, his satire is less cruel than that of his successors. His Vaiṣṇava opponents may have been beyond reclaim, but he does not appear to be afraid of them. His vaidika brahmin opponents could still be reclaimed. He may have been the most in fear of the social power of his Śaiva opponents, since he disguises them as Buddhists, a corollary to the intimidation expressed as the violent conflict portrayed in Śaiva texts, in which the Śaivas usually win. He is concerned about drawing boundaries of endogamy around the Jaina community; this was also a Śaiva preoccupation (Ben-Herut 2018, pp. 199–229). Nevertheless, Nayasēna is still able to write his polemic openly, and under his own name.

By the beginning of the thirteenth century, Brahmaśiva is railing in helpless fury at his sectarian opponents, who are apparently everywhere: vaidika brahmins, Śaivas, Vaiṣṇava, recidivist Jaina followers of popular religion and non-purāṇic deities, women, and so on. His diatribe clearly names his sectarian enemies and shames them without fear of retaliation, perhaps safe in the knowledge that his text circulated mainly within the Jaina community. But, he cannot resist claiming the best among his sectarian opponents or their best aspects as Jaina in origin. His rage is fuelled by the apparent success of his sectarian opponents in subverting and even stealing what was originally Jaina. He tells us very clearly that Śaivas and vaidika brahmins are his opponents; we find indirect evidence of this from Śaiva accounts of hagiographical battles with Jainas fought in Poṭṭaḷageṟe. We are less certain about his attitude towards Vaiṣṇavas. We cannot be sure why Vaiṣṇavas come in for so little bile in his text, but we cannot definitely say that this was because he was afraid of the power of Vaiṣṇavas. A broader analysis of inscriptions from the Paṭañceru region may help us understand the situation better, and we cannot rule out interpolations or redactions, given the nature of his text.

However, in the environment of the mid-fourteenth century, it is not surprising that Vṛttavilāsa writes a farcical fable under a pseudonym, and even then is afraid of directing ridicule at Vaiṣṇavas, even in the pages of his text read by the faithful few.53 His satire, though overtly conciliatory, mercilessly mocks his opponents, in fact. In this, he is a more sophisticated sectarian warrior than Brahmaśiva, who merely rages. But, Vṛttavilāsa is more wounded and helpless than Nayasēna because he sees no real prospect of reclaiming his opponents, and is hesitant to parade his Digambara Jaina affiliation openly in Pāṭalīputra; he enters and leaves Pāṭalīputra in disguise every day, and when he preaches Jaina doctrine to Pavanavēga in the evenings, it is always performed in solitude and in the outskirts of the city. In fact, Manōvēga only dares to cast off his disguise in front of his sectarian opponents when it is completely clear to him that the Pāṭalīputra brahmins have abandoned insincerity.

His vaidika brahmin opponent is vulnerable to logic, but Vṛttavilāsa’s logic is performative mockery and not really intended to convert his opponent. His Śaiva opponents are mocked for the improbable purāṇic exploits of their deity, but contemporary Śaivas of the fourteenth century increasingly worship an aniconic ‘liṅga’ form of their deity in preference to the anthropomorphic form given to purāṇic exploits, so it is unclear how provocative they may have found his characterisations. And, Vṛttavilāsa clearly dares not say much about his Vaiṣṇava opponents, who are in fact court-appointed ‘protectors’ of his sect.54 Moreover, by the fourteenth century, there is a new sectarian opponent: the Śvetāmbara.

Clearly, then, Jainas see themselves as beset by sectarian opponents in all three texts, but the one they are really threatened by changes over time from Śaiva to Vaiṣṇava. The vaidika brahmin in all three texts is a useful punching bag who is everywhere and nowhere, for it is not clear that the vaidika brahmin had developed a clear sectarian identity as ‘advaita/smārta’, even by the fourteenth century. While Nayasēna composes his text along a backbone of valorising Jaina doctrinal concepts and we can see his text as an attempt of mingled hope and despondency to convince people of the moral superiority of Jaina teachings, it is clear than neither Brahmaśiva nor Vṛttavilāsa had any such real intention or expectation, though they too declare their projects in a similar manner: neither of them saw their opponents as persuadable; on the contrary, their sectarian opponents were in fact their persecutors.

This begs the question: who really was the audience for these texts? We cannot be certain. We know that Nayasēna was a monk of some standing, writing in a monastic institution at a Jaina centre, and, based on the structure and language of his text, we may speculate with some confidence that he was writing for a monastic as well as a lay audience. Evidently, Nayasēna was not writing in the royal ambit and probably not writing for an audience of rulers. Brahmaśiva, on the other hand, was writing for Jaina ‘insiders’, since he exhorts his audience to have his text copied by and circulated among insiders, but we cannot say whether he was writing for monks or laymen. We know the least about the reception of Vṛttavilāsa, though his text is the most ‘courtly’ and performative, and appears to have been abundantly copied (De Jonckheere 2020, p. 213). Further study into fourteenth-century Jaina textual production in the Deccan, particularly in Kannada, would be needed for us to understand this aspect. Though Digambara Jainas declined in the Deccan from the twelfth century onwards, they continued to persist and even flourish on the west coast under the patronage of smaller feudatory dynasties. This has been studied occasionally by Kannada scholars55, but much still remains to be studied.