The Ascetics of Mount Aṭṭhāvaya Become Jain Monks

For the text of the Dumapattayaṃ see Charpentier’s edition of the Uttarādhyayana Sūtra pp. 101–105 and for an English translation see Jacobi 1895: 41–46. Alsdorf 1974: 226–230 discusses the metrical background of the Dumapattayaṃ which is written in the old Vaitālīya Aupacchandasaka metre, with the exception of vv. 5–15 which are interpolations. According to the commentarial tradition the Dummapattayaṃ poem represents a sermon by Mahāvīra prompted by Goyama lamenting his failure to gain omniscience. For manuscript illustrations see Brown 1941: 15.

Iṃdabhūi Goyama, to give him his full Prakrit name. Throughout this contribution I refer to this figure as Goyama and by the name’s Sanskrit equivalent Gautama when it occurs in a quotation or a Sanskrit source which I have translated. Following broad Indian convention I refer to canonical Prakrit texts by their Sanskrit titles.

Cf. Alsdorf 1974: 228: “Do not squander your opportunity, Gautama”. For samaya, see Mette 1991: 76 who draws attention to the commentarial interpretation of samayaṃ as “for an instant” and also notes the possible relevance of the term sāmāyika, “mental and physical equanimity”.

vocchinda siṇeham appaṇo kumuyaṃ sāraiyaṃ pāṇiyaṃ. The point of this verse line derives from word play: affection (siṇeha) should have no influence in the same way that moisture (siṇeha) does not adhere to the lily. I take appaṇo as ablative; cf. Jacobi 1895: 44: “cast aside from you …”. However, compare the Pali parallel at Dhammapada 285a and b (285c = Uttarādhyayana Sūtra 10.36c): ucchinda sineham attano / kumudaṃ sāradikam va pāṇinā, rendered by Norman 2001: 42 as “Cut out the love of self, as you would an autumn lily by the hand.” Here sineham attano seems to have a more overtly Buddhist sense. In his note on this verse Norman 20o1: 141 points to pāṇinā possibly being an old error for pāniyaṃ, “water”.

Jinacarita p. 65 para 127: Nāyae pijjabaṃdhane vocchinne. Cf. Mette 2010: 52 and 294. For the expression pijja- or pejjabaṃdhaṇa used of unbroken (avvochinna) ties of affection towards relatives see Bhagavatī Sūtra 8.5 (Amaramuni vol. 3 p. 104) and cf. Deleu 1970: 148. I take nāyaa to be the equivalent of Sanskrit nāyaka, “leader” rather than as connected with a supposed clan name Jñāta / Jñātṛ frequently assigned to Mahāvīra.

Anālayo 2016: 87 and 172; Shulman 2021: 113–118 and Silk 2020: 29–30.

The Upāsakadaśāḥ Sūtra describes how the Jain householder Āṇaṃda while following the vows of the advanced layman attained clairvoyant knowledge (avadhijñāna) of a significantly developed type. Goyama refused to accept that a layman could gain such a mode of knowledge, and insisted that for speaking falsely Āṇaṃda should repent and perform appropriate penance. Āṇaṃda appealed to Mahāvīra, who confirmed the validity of his attainment and called upon his disciple to repent, perform austerity and seek the layman’s pardon, to which Goyama duly assented. See Hoernle, trans pp. 59–60 para 86, and Amaramuni pp. 83–87 paras 82–86, Aṃgasuttāṇi p. 414 para 66. Cf. Wiley 2012: 146. It might be possible to interpret the foregoing episode as reflecting a period when the laity was gaining a more pronounced and autonomous role within the Jain community. On the other hand, a Jain might regard the significance of the episode as lying in Goyama’s deference and disciplined demeanour in the presence of his teacher Mahāvīra. See Vinayasāgar 1987.

In his Cauppannamahāpurisacariya (pp. 334–335) Śīlāṅka (ninth century) expands this fleeting reference into an account of Goyama’s introspective reflection about the nature of affection. Later vernacular poets were to further develop this narrative theme into a psychodrama indicative of Goyama’s deep devotion, in which heartfelt lamentation for the passing of Mahāvīra leads him to apprehend that his immoderate feeling for the Jina had hindered his own attainment of omniscience. See Desāī 1974 for an illustration. Such a theme appears to be absent in Digambara literature. This may reflect the fact that in Digambara tradition the teacher lineage is regarded as descending directly from Mahāvīra himself, and accordingly his disciples have less emphasis placed on their role.

The standard description of Goyama in terms of idealised physical perfection and spiritual attainment is to be found at Bhagavatī Sūtra 1.1. He has a substantial interlocutory presence throughout the Bhagavatī Sūtra as regular instigator and auditor of a wide range of Mahāvīra’s teachings, but little if any biographical context is provided. Modern accounts of Goyama by Jain authors have tended to produce a standardised composite biography by drawing on the few specific details from chronologically disparate canonical sources, along with commentarial descriptions of the disciple’s previous existences and presenting this material in integrated historical terms. See for example Vinayasāgar 1987: 4–18. Such accounts of Goyama’s life also regularly refer to the story of how he and his priestly brahman brothers became Mahāvīra’s disciples after witnessing his miraculous preaching ceremony, and then having the unsatisfatory nature of their various brahmanical philosophical views decisively demonstrated to them by the Jina. However, the earliest source to record this tradition is Jinabhadragaṇin’s Viśeṣāvaśyakabhāṣya, which dates from the very end of the sixth century or the beginning of the seventh century CE.

Goyama is not associated by Śvetāmbara Jain tradition with any sort of disagreement within the renunciant community. In this respect he is different from Ānanda, the Buddha’s closest disciple, about whom there is a wide and often thematically complex range of narratives owing to his status and also his advocacy of women being admitted to the saṅgha being of concern to various early Buddhist sectarian traditions. See Anālayo 2016: 160–161.

The ĀvCū also contains passages of Sanskrit. The earliest metrical version of the narrative occurs in the Uttarādhyayana Niryukti; see Appendix 1.

See Mette 1987: 147 and also 2010: 182 and 381.

See Bruhn 1981: 21–25 and 1998: 120 and 124.

Cf. Bruhn 1998: 124. The attraction of the Āvaśyaka Sūtra may have lain in a simplicity redolent of ethical and devotional integrity. For the basic components and structure of the Āvaśyaka textual “cluster”, see Bruhn 1981: 43–44 and also Balbir 1993a. Patel 2014: 4–5 uses the term “tradition” to describe the lengthy process of narrative reworkings of and commentarial engagements with a central literary work, specifically in this case Śrīharṣa’s Naiṣadhīyacarita. While it might in that light be convenient to refer to the “Āvaśyaka tradition”, the Āvaśyaka Sūtra has a much less substantial role in generating later readings in Jain literary culture than a large-scale kāvya such as the Naiṣadhīyacarita.

Leumann 2010. Fundamental though Leumann’s study remains, it will still strike most consulting it today as dauntingly technical in its formulation. Fortunately this new incarnation of Übersicht has the benefit of an important contextualising introduction by Nalini Balbir, whose own magisterial work is essential for understanding the Āvaśyaka literature. See Balbir 1993a.

Cf. Balbir 1993a: 34.

See Alsdorf 1998: 822 and Balbir 1993a. Scholarship has generally been content with a broad dating of the niryuktis between the first and fifth centuries CE. See for example Ollett 2017: 76. However, there seems little reason to dissent from the view of eminent Jain scholars such as Muni Puṇyavijaya and Dālsukh Malvāṇia that these works most likely originate in the late Gupta period. See Dhaky 2012: 124 n. 16.

Leumann identified four redactions of the Āvaśyaka Niryukti. The oldest he claimed to have originated with Bhadrabāhu in the first century CE, a judgement that seems to have been partly prompted by a consideration of the location of this teacher in the traditional lineage records. The three main commentaries, namely the ĀvCū and the ṭīkās of Haribhadra and Malayagiri, are viewed by Leumann as deriving from a further three differing versions of the root text. See Leumann 2010: 80–84 and Wu 2017: 315 and cf. Gough 2021: 236 n. 68.

For a recent statement from this perspective, see Kusumaprajñā’s introduction to ĀvNiryL.

See Jyväsjärvi 2010: 150–151.

See for example Norman 2001: 212.

See Balbir 2020: 59–60. Mahetā 1989: 57 states that the purpose of a niryukti is to establish the connection (sambandh) of meaning with the words of a sūtra.

See Sen 1975: 6–9 and also Balbir 1993a: 61, and Wu 2014: 162 nn. 40 and 41. The conclusion of the colophon of the Ratlām edition of the ĀvCū makes no reference to authorship but simply states that the copy of the work was given by Dīpavijayagaṇin to Pannyās Nyāyasāgaragaṇin in saṃvat 1774. For the likely order of composition of the cūrṇis, see Mahetā 1989: 266–267.

See von Hinüber 2019: 1183 n. 15. For the traditional explanation, see Alsdorf 1998: 817. For remarks on the cūrṇi’s commentarial procedures vis-à-vis sūtra and niryukti see Balbir 2022b: 403–404. Unfortunately analytical synopses and studies of the cūrṇis remain lacking; Sen 1975 is a notable exception.

Cf. Alsdorf 1998: 823. Although there is nothing in the Ratlām edition of the ĀvCū, whether by way of frontispiece information or an introduction, to suggest who was responsible for editing it, the likelihood is that the scholar involved was Sāgarānandasūri; see Tripathi 1981: 304 (where the name is imprecisely given as “Ānandasāgara sūri”). Cf. Malvania ViĀvBh Pt. 1 intro p. 4 for Ānandasāgara having edited Hemacandra Maladhārin’s Viśeṣāvaśyakabhāṣya for the ŚrīṚṣabhdev Keśarīmaljī series in 1936. The version of the ĀvCū given in Muni Dīparatnasāgara’s edition would seem to reproduce the Ratlām edition. Muni Jambūvijaya’s edition of the Anuyogadvāra Cūrṇi which forms part of his larger edition of the Anuyogadvāra Sūtra and related commentarial material is the most significant recent edition of a cūrṇi.

See Mahetā 1989, opening of each chapter on cūrṇis, and p. 275 for the ĀvNiry and ĀvCū.

Koch 1990: 26 characterises the ĀvCū, which he regards as having been written by Jinadāsa, as commenting on a substantially shorter version of the ĀvNiry which has not survived (presumably one of the recensions identified by Leumann; see note 18), but which can be identified through inspecting the catchwords employed and the version commented on by Haribhadra. However, the author of the ĀvCū could have been deliberately selective about which verses he discussed and furthermore ĀvNiry verses are not always cited by catchwords when they can be readily dealt with in the cūrṇi proper. An example relevant to some of the textual material discussed below is ĀvNiry vv. 742–763, a group of verses which deals with scriptural transmission and interpretation as they relate to the Jina, Goyama and the teacher Vaira; only vv. 742, 744, 745, 749, 750, 756, 759, 760, 761, and 762 are specifically singled out by catchword by the ĀvCū, with the rest being paraphrased or expanded in the running commentarial prose.

While the ĀvCū is not solely a repository of exemplary narrative, it is this aspect of the work which has attracted most scholarly attention, as most notably Balbir’s extensive work deriving from Leumann’s 1897 edition Die Āvaśyaka Erzählungen; see Balbir 1993a. Koch 1991–1992 uses the ĀvCū in conjunction with other relevant commentaries to give an analysis of a selection of Āvaśyaka-related narratives; see also Koch 1995–1996, 1998 and 2009. Most recently, Wu 2017 has revealed the differing ways in which shared narrative themes are used in the ĀvCū and the Buddhist Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya.

Uttarādhyayana Sūtra, introduction, p. 50.

Alsdorf 1998: 817. Alsdorf goes on to refine this insight by explaining (p. 818) that “the cuṇṇi, that is in the form we have it now, has taken the form of a commentary on parts of the nijjutti and of the sutta, thus reflecting the original oral instruction, of which only certain parts had been epitomized in the form of mnemonic verses.” For observations on orality in early Indic textuality, see Pollock 2018: 30–32.

See Balbir 1993a: 115 and 2020.

See section D6 and note 93. The ĀvCū as a whole evinces varying degrees of stylistic sophistication.

The term sāmī is used of Mahāvīra fifteen times, of Goyama fourteen times (according to Mette 2010: 184 this is a term peculiar to Goyama). The honorific bhagavaṃ (and the variants bhayavaṃ and bhagava) is used eight times of Mahāvīra and eight times of Goyama. For a discussion of the rendering of bhagavaṃ in the Buddhist context (“Lord” or “Blessed one”), see Shulman 2021: 15 n. 28.

See Balbir 1993a: 64–68. This sequence has its origin in the list of 26 dāra (“topic”) words given at ĀvNiry vv. 140–141 (= Anuyogadvāra Sūtra sū. 604, for which Hanaki 1970: 208–210); for the 26 dāra words starting with v. 141 which constitute a programme developed as far as v. 879 and represent a form of exegetical framework, see Balbir 1993a: 55–56 and 64 and cf. Kusumaprajñā’s introduction to ĀvNiryL: 28–36.

See Williams 1959: 343: sāmāyi’-āī-ekkārasa-aṅga: the normal phrase in canonical legends to designate the āgamas.

titthayaro kiṃkāraṇaṃ bhāsai sāmāiyaṃ tu ajjhayaṇaṃ / titthayaraṇāmagottaṃ kammaṃ me veiyavvaṃ ti // 742 “Why does the tīrthaṅkara utter the Sāmāyika chapter (of the Āvaśyaka Sūtra)? Because (he knows that) he must experience the “name and clan” karma of all tīrthaṅkaras (which is the cause of uttering the chapter).” taṃ ca kahaṃ veijjai agilāe dhammadesaṇāīhiṃ / bajjhai taṃ tu bhagavao taiyabhavosakkaittā ṇaṃ // 743 “So how is it experienced? Through actions like unwearied teaching of the doctrine. That karma is bound by the lord on the conclusion of (lit. having emerged from) his third previous existence.” For osakkai < ava-/ apa-ṣvaṣk, see Bollée 1994: 167 and Bollée 1998 vol. 3: 57 and Oberlies 1993: 48 (quoting Pali apasakkati, go away). I discuss ĀvNiry v. 744 at section I.

Goyamāmāī Sāmāiyaṃ tu kiṃkāraṇaṃ nisāminti / ṇāṇassa taṃ tu suṃdaramaṃgulabhāvāṇaṃ uvaladdhī // 745, with translation following Haribhadra and Malayagiri. For maṅgula see Oberlies 1995: 131 s.v maṅgura, “hässlich”, and Norman 1992: 262–263. Sanskrit maṅgula, for which see Monier-Williams s.v. (the word is not found in PWB), would appear to be a Prakritism.

See note 229.

These dāra words (kāraṇa, paccaya, and lakkhaṇa) represent elements 9–11 of the programme identified by Balbir 1993a; see note 34. For kāraṇa, see section I.

ĀvNiry v. 144 mentions only five main ṇaas with the first, negama, and the fifth, sadda, subdivided; cf. Ohira 1982: 16. Traces of perspectivism in the Śvetāmbara āgama are infrequent and undeveloped; see Deleu 1970: 24 and cf. Ohira 1994: 229.

The dāra word is somoāraṇa; cf. Hanaki 1970: 209 and 227 and also Balbir 1993b: 67 and Krümpelmann 2021: 217 (translating samavatāra as “Inhärenz”).

apuhutte samoyāro natthi puhutte samoyāro. My translation of apuhutta and puhutta is literal. Cf. Schubring 1935: 26 where apuhatta is rendered by “Häufung”. In the English version apuhatta is rendered by “accumulation” and puhatta by “isolation”; see Schubring 1978: 119 n. 1. See also Balbir 2020: 59 and Krümpelmann 2021: 214 n. 88.

The aṇuyogas consist of four broad generic categories of exegetical analysis falling under the rubrics of “behaviour” (caraṇa), “doctrine” (dharma), “enumeration” (saṃkhyā) and “substance” (dravya) which are to be regarded as encompassing the meaning of the suttas. Cf. Schubring 1977: 299 and Krümpelmann 2021: 192 and 208.

jāvaṃta AjjaVairā apuhattaṃ kāliyāṇuyogassa / tenāreṇa puhattaṃ kāliyasuya Diṭṭhivāde // 763 “Up to the time of the noble Vaira there was non-separateness of the aṇuyogas with regard to kāliya texts. After him there was separateness with regard to the kāliya textual tradition and the Dṛṣtivāda.” ĀvNiry and the AvCū give Vaira (c. 1st century CE) the honorific ajja (Sanskrit ārya). He is also known also known in Prakrit as Vairasāmī (Sanskrit Vajrasvāmin). Tatia, in the introduction to Hanaki 1970: vii, explains the kāliya (Sanskrit kālika) scriptures in this context as those whose “study required a monk to be of a definite standing in respect of the period of his monkhood.” The Dṛṣṭivāda is the twelfth aṅga of the Ardhamāgadhī scriptural canon which from relatively early times came to be accepted as having been lost.

According to ĀvNiry v. 774 the change in exegetical procedure was introduced by Vaira’s pupil Rakkhiya who wished to assist pupils who were deficient in intellectual ability.

ĀvCū p. 381 ll. 4–9: ko puṇo ajjaVairo jaṃmi apuhuttaṃ āsi? jeṇa [read keṇa] ya kāraṇeṇa puhuttaṃ kataṃ iti icchāmi tesiṃ ajjaVatirāṇaṃ uṭṭhāṇapāriṇāmiyaṃ sotuṃ, kiha puhuttaṃ jātaṃ. Henceforth citations from the ĀvCū text are taken from the first volume of the Ratlām edition.

Āryarakṣitavijaya’s edition vol. 3: 102–109.

D’s version of the story is also found in the Prakrit commentary entitled Sukhabodhā on the Uttarādhyayana Sūtra by Devendra (on becoming ācārya, Nemicandrasūri) composed in saṃvat 1129 which was an adaptation of Ś.

H: Vairasāmī puvvabhave.

The translation makes more explicit Vesamaṇa’s status in respect to Sakka and that of the sāmāṇia god, to be reborn as Vaira, in respect to Vesamaṇa. For Vesamaṇa (Sanskrit Vaiśravaṇa, commonly known in Hindu tradition as Kubera) as guardian of the northern region see Deleu 1976: 246 and cf. Kirfel 1967: 265 and 305. For sāmāṇika as a generic term for a type of god of a status comparable to that of a prince, see Kirfel 1967: 262. The designation may denote that such gods are “equivalent” (samāna) to Indra in terms of powers; see Abhidhānarājendrakośa s.v. sāmāṇiya-sāmānika: samānatayā Indratulyatayā ṛddhyā carantīti sāmānikāḥ and cf. Lalwani 1973–1985 vol. 2: 319.

H: ito ya bhagavaṃ Vaddhamāṇasāmī Piṭṭhicaṃpāe nayarīe subhūmibhāge ujjāṇe samosaḍho (“And at that time the venerable Lord Vaddhamāṇa had arrived to preach in a garden in a pleasant part of the city of Piṭṭhicaṃpā”). For Piṭṭhicaṃpā see Stein 1948: 50 and Stein 1967: 187: “not the suburb, but a certain part of the town of Campa: something like ‘High-Campa’ or the Acropolis of Campa’ ”. This is questionable. Mehta and Chandra 197o: 455, s.v. Piṭṭha-Campā: “to the west of Campā on way to Rāyagṛha.”

Correcting Pīḍharo; H: Piṭharo.

This appears to be an abbreviated passage. The expression jaṃ navaram is usually picked up in the main clause of a sentence by an expression such as tato, tao or tao ṇaṃ. For jaṃ navaraṃ see Roth 1983: 158 and Schubring 1978: 70. H conveys the sense more clearly: tato Sālo bhagavato samīve dhammaṃ soūṇa bhaṇai—jaṃ navaraṃ Mahāsālaṃ rajje abhisiṃcāmi, tato tuṃhaṃ pādamūle pavvayāmi (“Then Sāla having heard the doctrine from the blessed one said, “I will first consecrate Mahāsāla as ruler over the kingdom, then renounce the world in your presence” ”.)

H: so bhaṇai-ahaṃ pi pavvayāmi, jahā tubbhe iha amhāṇaṃ meḍhīpamāṇaṃ tahā pavvaiyassa vi tti. For meḍhi see Turner 1966: 10317 s.v. methi, “pillar in threshing floor to which oxen are fastened, prop for supporting carriage shafts”; Roth 1983: 125 (p. 124 for meḍhīpamāṇaṃ: Maßstab, i.e. standard).

H: tāhe Gāgalī Kaṃpillapurāto āṇeuṃ rajje abhisiṃcito.

This phrase appears to be an abbreviated description of a royal renunciation of the sort found in e.g the Jñātādharmakathāḥ Sūtra; see Roth 1983: 159–163. For a list of jāva occurrences with their textual correlates which occur in the Nirayāvaliyāo, see Deleu 1996: 31–36.

Absolutive used as finite verb? See Bollée 2010: 159 n. 594.

For the status of the samaṇovāsiya, see More 2020: 428–429.

An abbreviation of the expression teṇaṃ kāleṇaṃ teṇaṃ samaeṇaṃ.

Correcting the edition’s āpucchati; H: sāmiṃ pucchaṃti.

Correcting the edition’s Piṭṭhīcaṃpaṃ.

H: pavvaejja sammattaṃ vā labhejja. This gives slightly better sense. I omit the edition’s inserted question mark.

H: sāmī Caṃpaṃ gato, Goyamasāmī ’vi Piṭṭhicaṃpaṃ gato, tattha samosaraṇaṃ. While it does not have any significant impact on interpreting the narrative, there is a slight lack of clarity at this juncture concerning the itinerary of the protagonists. H seems to be clarifying by introducing a clause specifying that Mahāvīra went to Campā and Goyama went to Piṭṭhicaṃpā, but the statement in the following clause that “a preaching assembly (took place) there” is awkward since it can only refer to the Jina, as is clear from the ĀvCū text.

Sanskrit Rājagṛha.

Jain monks today can move at an impressive pace as they journey between the various destinations on their mendicant itinerary, and given that the Sanskrit root √dhāv frequently means “run”, it is possible that padhāvita signifies “proceeded briskly” (cf. Mette: “eilten”). However, the context here and later in the story suggests that “proceeded” (“or proceeded confidently”) is a more appropriate rendering. See Bodewitz 1974 for dhāv as meaning “move” and also Harzer 2015: 216–230.

That is, through seeing them.

That is, they experienced saṃvega. For observations on saṃvega in Jainism, see Acri 2015: 204–205. Cf. Walker 2018: 277–279. See also Detige 2020: 101.

I follow the editorial bracketed insertion.

H: jahā amhe etehiṃ rajje ṭhāviyāṇi punar avi dhamme ṭhāviyāṇi saṃsārāto moiyāṇi.

Correcting the edition’s kevalaparisaṃ.

For tikkhutto see Marciniak 2020: 22 n. 14.

D p. 154a l. 13: tattha Goyamasāmissa sammattamohaṇīyakammodayavaseṇa ciṃtā jāyā.

As observed in note 63, there is some slight uncertainty here. As the ĀvCū description stands, Goyama journeys from Piṭṭhicaṃpā to Caṃpā with Sāla and Mahāsāla who gain omniscience on the road, while Piḍhara, Jasavatī and Gāgali gain omniscience in Campā. However, the narrative seems to be implying that all five journey to Caṃpā with Goyama.

For subha see Jaini 2000 and for ajjhavasāa see Wiley 2012.

Mette 1987 takes tittha as “der heiligen Stätte”, possibly because this links up with the imminent reference to the shrines on Mount Aṭṭhāvaya. I understand the term here to denote the fourfold Jain community, present to hear Mahāvīra’s preaching. For this sense of tittha, see Bhagavatī Sūtra 20.8 (cf. Deleu 1970: 257). For tittha as the scriptures, see Senapraśna 27.1.

I take āsāehi as equivalent of the Sanskrit imperative āśātaya. However, the form might also be taken as equivalent to āsādaya, with Mahāvīra telling the non-omniscient Goyama not to “join” or “approach” the kevalins since he does not belong among the enlightened. Both forms would normally contain the phonetic development -t- / -d- > -y-.

The expression āuṭṭa, “turned”, which is common in ĀvCū, denotes a change of attitude or, occasionally, physical state (cf. section D12). See Ghatage 2004: 927 s.v. āuṭṭa “turned over (to one’s side), won over (to one’s views), made favourable”; also “turned back (from some mistake or from a wrong view)” and “turned towards, determined”. Cf. Mette 1987 “respektvoll um Verzeihung”.

According to D Goyama was under the influence of that type of deluding (mohaṇijja) karma which undermines correct religious attitude (sammatta).

I have omitted the edition’s daṇḍa at the end of this phrase, which suggests that it is to be taken with the previous phrase about Goyama’s apprehension. However, I interpret the phrase as representing Goyama’s awareness of what the gods say about Mount Aṭṭhāvaya (see Mette 1987 and 2010).

For the phrase teṇ’ eva bhava-ggahaneṇa sijjhejjā / sijjhittae at Āyāradasāo 10 para. 72 see Schubring 1966: 26.

D p. 154 ll. 15–16: tāhe sāmī tassa cittaṃ jāṇai—tāvasāṇa ca saṃbohaṇayaṃ, eyassa thirayā bhavissai tti do vi kayāṇi bhavissaṃti.

The phrase eyassa vi paccato seems awkward and is reflected in my tentative translation; eyassa vi in the previous clause refers to Goyama, while as dependent on paccato, the equivalent of paccayo (= Sanskrit pratyayaḥ with -t- as intervocalic), it seems to refer to Mahāvīra. Cf. Mette 1987: “Und weil er schon wusste”. The phrase is not reproduced by H.

H provides broader context and smooths away some but not all of the syntactic awkwardness of ĀvCū: ito ya sāṃiṇā puvvaṃ vāgariyaṃ aṇāgae Goyamasāmimmi-jahā jo Aṭṭhāpadaṃ [sic] vilaggai ceiyāṇi ya vaṃdai dharaṇigoyaro so teṇeva bhavaggahaṇeṇa sijjhati, taṃ ca devā annamannassa kahiṃti, jahā kira dharaṇigoyaro Aṭṭhāvayaṃ jo vilaggati so teṇeva bhaveṇa sijjhai, tato Goyamasāmī ciṃtai-jaha Aṭṭhāvayaṃ vaccejjā, tato sāmī tassa hiyayākūtaṃ jāṇiūna [absolutive as finite verb? see Bollée 2010: 159 n. 594] tāvasā ya saṃbujjhihinti ti bhagavayā bhaṇito vacca Goyama Aṭṭhāvayam ceiyaṃ vaṃdeuṃ.

“And at this time the lord had previously predicted in lord Goyama’s absence that any mortal who ascends Aṭṭhāvaya and worships the shrines there attains deliverance in that same existence. And the gods talk about that to one another, namely that it is said (kira) that a mortal who climbs Aṭṭhāvaya attains liberation in that existence. Then lord Goyama thought that he should go to Aṭṭhāvaya. Then the lord knew his inner disposition and that ascetics would be awakened. The blessed one told him, “Go to Aṭṭhāvaya, Goyama, to worship the shrine.” ” Cf. Devendra p. 154 l. 14: io ya devāṇa saṃlāvo vaṭṭai—ajja bhagavayā vāgariyaṃ—jo Aṭṭhāvayammi vilaggai …

I take bhagavam as the accusative of the vowel stem bhagava; if it is nominative then it refers to Goyama.

See ĀvNiry v. 307 for Aṭṭhāvaya as one of a group of locations associated with deliverance of Jinas and vv. 433–444 for the Jina Ṛṣabha gaining liberation there; see also Kalpa Sūtra p. 76 l. 16 and Vimalasūri, Paumacariya 5.88. For the name Aṭṭhāvaya (Sanskrit Aṣṭāpada) see section F.

The shrines on Mount Aṭṭhāvaya were erected by the emperor Bharata who was accepted as being the son of the Jina Ṛṣabha by the time of the composition of the ĀvNiry. However, Hīrapraśnottara no. 214 refers to the “middle” of the Śatruñjayamāhātmya for the images being installed (pratimāpratiṣṭhā) on the mountain by a pupil of Ṛṣabha. See Hīrapraśnottara 2.13 for the Vasudevahiṇḍi being the source for the caityas on Aṣṭāpada lasting through the avasarpiṇī and the last question in the Hīrapraśnottara which relates to the eternity of the temples on Mount Aṣṭāpada compared to those on Śatruñjaya. Hīrapraśnottara 7.5 refers to the vṛtti on the Aupapātika Sūtra (Ambaḍa section) glossing ceiāṇi caityāni by arhatpratimāḥ. Hīrapraśnottara 38.4 asks: why are the shrines erected by Bharata on Aṣṭāpada still standing while those he erected on Śatruñjaya have experienced numerous vicissitudes and restorations? How is there such a difference when they are so near to each other? In answer it states that those on Aṣṭāpada are immune because they are inviolable (nirapāyatvāt) owing to the proximity of the gods. The Vasudevahiṇḍi states that they will last into the next utsarpinī.

Hīravijayasūri (1526–1595) states that while no explicit statement can be found, the supposition is that only those who are in possession of superhuman power gained through austerity and moral restraint can reach the summit of Mount Aṣṭāpada to gain liberation in that lifetime. Accordingly demons, monkeys and the category of flying monk known as cāraṇa must be excluded. See Hīrapraśnottara 3.11: Aṣtāpādagirau svakīyalabdhyā ye jinapratimāṃ vandante tadbhavasiddhigāmina ity akṣarāṇi santi. tathā ca sati ye vidyādharayaminas tathā rākṣasavānaracāraṇabhedabhinnā aneke ye tapasvinas tatra gantuṃ śaktās teṣāṃ sarveṣām api tadbhavavasiddhigāmitvam āpadyate, tataḥ sā kā labdhir yayā tatra gamane Gautamādivat tadbhavasiddhigāmino bhavanti? iti praśno ’trottaram—Aṣṭāpadagirau ye tapaḥsaṃyamotthalabdhyā yātrāṃ kurvanti te tadbhavasiddhigāmina iti saṃbhāvyate vyaktākṣarānulambhāt.

H: paṃcasayaparivārā; Śīlāṅka, Cauppannamahāpurisayacariyaṃ p. 222: Koṇḍiṇṇasagottāṇaṃ tāvasāṇaṃ paṇṇarasa sayāṇi saṃbujjhaṃti. The commentarial tradition on the Uttarādhyayana Sūtra has paṃcapaṃca. See Uttarādhyayana Niryukti v. 296: ikkikkassa ya tesiṃ parivāro paṃca paṃca sayā (see below) with Ś (p. 273) and D p. 154b l. 2: tinni tāvasā paṃcapaṃcasayaparivārā patteyaṃ patteyaṃ te ’Aṭṭhāvayaṃ vilaggāmo’ tti tattha kilassaṃti. For discussion see Appendix 1.

H omits tattha kilassaṃti.

H: Koṃḍiṇṇo; UttNiry vv. 293 and 296, also Ś: Koḍinna; Śīlāṅka, Cauppannamahāpurisacariya p. 322: Koṇḍiṇṇa.

The edition has cautthaṃ 2. For fasts involving the fourth, sixth and eighth meals, that is 1^1/2, 2^1/2 and 3^1/2 meals see Roth 1983: 168–169.

H: mūlakaṃdāṇi.

H: chaṭṭhassa 2. See note 91.

Cf. Aupapātika Sūtra para 74: parisaḍiya-kanda-mūla-taya-patta-puppha-phal’-āhārā.

H: aṭṭhamaṃ aṭṭhameṇa.

H omits evaṃ te ’vi tāva kilissaṃti.

For tāvasas as one of five types of samaṇa who should not receive homage see ĀvCū Vol. 2 p. 20 ll. 4–5: ime vi paṃca ṇa avaṃdiyavvā samaṇasadde vi sati, jahā ājīvagā tāvasā pārivvāyagā taccaṃṇiyā, boḍiyā. See also Mahetā 1989: 278–279. For the generic category of tāpasa in the Pali Jātakas, see McGovern 2019: 114–115.

My translation follows H. As it stands the number paṃcapaṃcasaya- in the ĀvCū seems to mean “505”, but it may possibly signify “a full 500” with the repetition of paṃca being a form of āmreḍita. Cf. for earlier Prakrit Aśoka Rock Edict 3C: paṃcasu paṃcasu vasesu, “every five years” (Tieken 2023: 63). Elsewhere in the Śvetāmbara āgama, paṃca sayā is a standard round number; see Deleu 1996: 37 l. 4 and Roth 1983: 67. Cf. Anālayo 2016: 27 for Mahāpajāpatī entering the Buddhist saṅgha with 500 nuns. The reference in this context by Mette 1987: 147 to the pañcavargīya monks converted by the Buddha is a component of an interpretation with Buddhist influence of the ĀvCū narrative. For further discussion see Appendix 1. For parivāra as a type of Jain monastic grouping, see Caillat 1965: 27.

For these names see section G.

For mehalā as “terrace”, see Shah 1955: 116–117; he refers to Bharata who in order to protect the mountain erected eight “steps” in the form of terraces. Cf. Kālidāsa, Kumārasaṃbhava 8.67 where the sense of mekhalā seems to be “slope of mountain”.

For śīrṇaparṇāśin as a category of ascetic described in the Mahābhārata, see Hiltebeitel 2016: 37–38. Senapraśna 47.1 for the roots of a tubor (kanda) containing many life forms but not its leaves.

Cf. Aupapātika Sūtra para 74: sevālabhakkhiṇo.

Mette 1987: 140 n. 2 identifies this compound as a veḍha taken from the description of Mahāvīra at Aupapātika Sūtra para. 16. In fact, it has been adapted: in Leumann’s edition p. 31 the reading is huyavaha-niddhūma-jaliya-taḍi-taḍiya-taruṇa-ravi-kiraṇa-sarisa-tee.

H: sukkā lukkhā; Ś p. 273 and D p. 154b: sukkā bhukkhā; cf. Jñātādharmakathāḥ Sūtra p. 14 l. 4 (sukkā bhukkhā referring to the queen Dhāriṇī, with variant sukkhā attested in six manuscripts) and Nirayāvaliyāsuyakkhandha 1.7 and 8 for sukka bhukkha (Deleu 1996: 40 and also 42 for the noun bhukkhā, “hunger” recorded in Hemacandra’s Deśīnāmamālā). For sukka as equivalent of Sanskrit śuṣka see Bollée 1994 s.v. The adjective bhukkha, for which there is no obvious Sanskrit equivalent, would appear to have the sense of “famished”. Despite being listed as a headword in the Ardhamāgadhī dictionary, it occurs only in conjunction with sukkha, less commonly sukka, rather than as a fully independent adjective which suggests that its function is partly connected with assonance. The occurrence of lukkha in some of the sources such as H and also Nāyā (p. 72 l. 19: tavokammeṇaṃ sukke lukkhe nimmaṃse) permits reference to an analogous Buddhist Sanskrit form śuddhalūkha in a verse occuring in the Śarabhaṅga Jātaka of the Mahāvastu (Marciniak 2019: 463); this describes five hundred root and fruit eating ascetics living on the slopes of Mount Himavat: pañca śatāni Himavantapārśvena mūlaphalāhārā riṣayaḥ vasensuḥ / uṃcchai ratā tāpasā śuddhalūkhā susaṃyatā ugratapā udārā //. Jones 1956: 363 renders the expression by “pure though poor”, citing the variant form lūha as meaning “poor” of bodily condition.

Nominative singular in -e.

H: lūtāpuḍagaṃ.

H: te tiṇṇi vi.

orālasarīraṃ is the equivalent of Sanskrit udāraśarīram; cf. the Mahāvastu verse quoted in n. 104 where the Himavat ascetics are described as udāra (Jones op.cit. “sublime”).

For Goyama’s appearance see section H.

See Wiley 2012: 145 n. 1 for general remarks on labdhi and 179 for the attainment of flying with the legs; see Bhagavatī 20.9, for the contents of which see Leumann in Bollée 1997: 332–333; also Deleu 1970: 257 for jangha-cāraṇa-laddhi. The ĀvCū seems to be amalgamating two kinds of labdhi: thigh flying and thread flying. For the Digambara perspective on yogic flying see Cort 2022: 29. Cf. Śīlāṅka’s Cauppannamahāpurisacariya p. 323 v. 647b: ravikiraṇakarālambaṇavaseṇa addamsaṇaṃ patto. The early seventeenth century Sanskrit mahākāvya, the Hīrasaubhāgya of Devavimala 4.9 has Gautama ascending Aṣṭāpada by clutching the rays of the sun as ropes. Ṛṣimaṇḍalavṛtti quoted by Hīrasaubhāgya 4.9 autocomm: tapaḥkṛśāṅgās tam śailam āroḍhuṃ vayaṃ na kṣamāḥ / caḍhiṣyati kathaṃ prauḍhadeho ’yaṃ gajarājavat // paśyatsu teṣu mārtaṇḍakarān ālambya Gautamaḥ / gaṇabḥrn nijalabdhyaivāṣṭāpadordhvaṃ yayau dhruvam // Also Vandāruvṛtti: sūryasyāṃśūn samāśritya teṣāṃ utpaśyatām / sa Gaurutmān ivoḍḍīya yayau maṅkṣu gireḥ śiraḥ // tathā bhagavaṃ Goyamo jaṅghācāraṇaladdhīe lūtāpuḍagaṃmi nissāe uḍḍham uppayai java te palāyanti ity Āvaśyakasāhasryām | Malayagirivṛttāv apy ayam eva pāṭhaḥ |.

H: uttarapuratthime. Although the form uttarapucchima is not cited in Poddar 2009 or Sheth 1963 (also lacking pucchima), it could be the equivalent of Sanskrit uttarapaścima, “north-western”, with labialisation a > u in the second component of the compound, and I have so translated it. The connection of this region with the god Vāyu makes this interpretation apposite, given Goyama’s superhuman ascent of Aṭṭhāvaya. It is however possible that a syllable has dropped out of the ĀvCū form. Cf. Municandrasūri on Upadeśapada p. 118: uttarapuricchimāe disāe. Poddar cites uttarapuracchima s.v. as a wrong reading in the Vasudevahiṇḍi for uttarapuratthima, “north-eastern”, the reading in H p. 106 which may inform Mette 1987: 141 and 2010: 186, “nordöstlicher”. Cf. Ś on Uttarādhyayana Niryukti v. 305 p. 273 l. 13: uttarapuracchime and D p. 154 ll. 3–4: uttarapuratthime. The similarity between the ligatures tth / cch is well known; see Koch 2000: 377 and Roth 1983: 66 (and also p. 155 for paccatthima and puratthima which Pischel derives from purastima).

For the phrase puḍhavisilāvaṭṭae as part of a jāva insertion in Āyāradasāo 5.1, see Schubring 1966: 11. For the phrase puḍhavīsilāpaṭṭae as a stereotyped expression from Aupapātika Sūtra para 10 found in the Nirayāvaliyāo, see Deleu 1996: 31.

H omits tuyaṭṭo.

For anta-panta as a stereotyped phrase see Mette 1974: 74 n. 126. ĀvCū p. 386 l. 5: the exiguous food brings about a feverish illness in Kaṃḍarīya (see section D10c) as with Selaga (annayā tassa Kamḍarīyassa antehi (sic) ya paṃtehī ya jahā Selagassa jāva dāhavakkantīe yāvi viharati) = Nāyā p. 350 para. 143 ll. 5–6 (for jāva n. 6: pp. 124 and 125, referring to the story of Selaga at Nāyā 5; Ś p. 274 ll. 31–32: aṃtehi ya paṃtehi ya jāva rogāyaṃke pāubbhūe jāva dāhavakkantīe yāvi viharati).

H: tato se bhagavaṃ dhammakahāvasare aṇagāraguṇe parikahei, jahā bhagavaṃto sāhavo aṃtāhārā evamādi. D p. 155b ll. 6–8: tā aṃtāhārā aṃtāhārā iccāiparūvaṇāe visaṃvāiṇaṃ ceṭṭhaṃ imassa sarīrāgiī sūei, taṃ ca tassa ākūyaṃ nāṇeṇa nāūṇa bhayavaṃ ’mā aṇeṇa kusalapariṇāmeṇa esa dullahabohio havau’ tti aṇusāsaṇanimittaṃ savvasattahiyarao Puṃḍariyaṃ nāma ’jjhayaṇaṃ parūvei.

See section D1.

Not referred to by H. See note 197. Mette 1987: 141 refers without explanation to the story of “Dhannabhadda”; however, see Mette 2010: 383.

See the Jaina Āgama series edition of Muni Jambūvijaya, p. 348–354. Mette 1987: 141 n. 3 and 142 n. 4 and Schubring 1978 provide some textual background. The ĀvCū p. 384 gives the title of the chapter as Poṃḍarīya which might be the equivalent of Sanskrit Pauṇḍarīka, “relating to Puṇḍarīka.” Throughout the ĀvCū version the name is Puṃḍarīa or Poṃḍarīa. ĀvCū pp. 387–388 l. 1 (translation Mette 2010: 66–67 but not with reference to the story of Goyama). Mette 2010: 186, also 1987: 142 n. 4, adds verses from the commentarial tradition summing up the story.

H: aṭṭaduhaṭṭo kālagato ahe sattamāe uvavaṇṇo. The compound aṭṭaduhaṭṭavasaṭṭo is canonical; see Jñātādharmakathāḥ Sūtra 1.8 (Muni Jambūvijaya’s edition p. 158 l. 12, with note 11 giving Abhayadevasūri’s interpretation; cf. Roth 1983: 93: “gequält, vom Leid bedrängt, und in qualvoller Abhängigkeit.”). While it might seem a generalised expression of anguish (cf. Mette 2010: 186: “auf das äußerste gepeinigt”), the assonant repetition of aṭṭa connects in the ĀvCū with the type of psychologically unhealthy preoccupation against which Goyama is counselling Vesamaṇa. It is also possible that aṭṭa might be taken as “emaciated” (see Ghatage 2004 s.v.), which would give further point to the contrast between Kaṇḍarīya and Puṃḍarīya.

H: āuṭṭo saṃvegam āvaṇṇo.

For the Savvaṭṭhasiddhi heaven see Kirfel 1967: 294 and 298.

The tone here may be slightly sarcastic; see Deshpande 2009: 31–33.

See section I (i).

See section I (ii).

H: tattha Vesamaṇassa ego sāmāṇio devo jaṃbhago, tena taṃ Puṃḍarīyajjhayaṇaṃ uggahiyaṃ paṃcasayāṇi, sammattaṃ ca paḍivanṇṇo.

See section D1.

The meaning is uncertain and my translation is accordingly provisional. The version of this story given by Municandrasūri in his commentary on Haribhadra’s Upadeśapada (p. 119 v. 114–115) describes the jaṃbhaga deity studying the Puṃḍarīya chapter which is “five hundred granthas in length” and so gaining perfect samyaktva (vaṃdittā bhagavaṃtaṃ gao tao tattha jaṃbhago devo / ego Vesamaṇasamo Puṃḍariyajjhayaṇaṃ uccariyaṃ // Nāyādhammakahāsūṃ siṭṭhaṃ paṃcasayagaṃdhaparimāṇaṃ / avadhārei lahei ya suddhaṃ sammattam aha eso //). For the expression granthaparimāṇa as designating the extent of a work see Balbir 2022a: 122 n. 16. The next verse describes how a little less than five hundred years after Mahāvīra’s death the god fell from heaven (paṃcasu saesu varisāṇam aigaesuṃ jiṇāo Vīrāo / kiṃcūnesu sa jaṃbhagadevo caviūṇa suralogā //). Mette 1987: 142 and 2010: 187 omits the reference to the god studying the Puṃḍarīya story in both her translations no doubt because its linkage to the broader story of the teacher Vaira is not germane to her discussion.

Balbir 1993a: 115 regards the phrase keī bhaṇaṃti as indicative of an alternative version reflecting an oral unfixed background to a story; see section B. According to the Jinacarita of the Kalpa Sūtra p. 54 paragraph 89 and p. 57 para 98 the jaṃbhaya (Sanskrit jṛmbhaka) gods are servants of Vesamaṇa. See also note 329.

D p. 158 ll. 10–14: tāhe sāmī bhagavao guṇasaṃthavaṇaṃ karei—jahā savvannū savvadaṃsī rūvasaṃpayāe aharīkayabhuvano kiṃkarīkayasayalasurāsuro suraviraiyarayaṇamaya-siṃhāsaṇovaviṭṭho suravaracalijjamāṇacāmarajuyalo uvaridhariyahavalachattattao rayaṇa-kaṇaya-kalahoyamayapāyāratiyaparivalaio samaṇo bhayavaṃ Mahāvīro bhavvasattāṇaṃ hammaṃ vāgaraṃto sampayaṃ Caṃpāe viharai so amha gurū imaṃ ca soūṇa jāo tāṇa mahaṃto parioso, viyalio kammagaṃthī, pāviyaṃ sammaddaṃsaṇaṃ, jāo caraṇapariṇāmo, gahiyā Goyamasamīve pavvajjā.

H: kim āṇijjau pāraṇam iti.

H: paḍiggahaṃ ghatamadhusaṃjuttassa pāyasassa bharettā.

H: te bhagavatā akkhīṇamāhāṇasieṇa savve uvaṭṭhiyā, pacchā appaṇā jimito, tato te suṭṭhutaraṃ āuṭṭā.

D provides more detail about the manner in which the ascetics become Jain monks. After Goyama has confirmed the glorious nature of his teacher Mahāvīra currently preaching in his samavasaraṇa at Campā, the ascetics in delight have the knot of their karma broken and attain correct view, thus bringing to an end their previous ascetic regime.

It is not actually specified that this is the sāmāṇia deity mentioned at D1 and D11.

For pāyasa as rice cooked in milk and mixed with sugar, the equivalent of Hindi khīr, see Prakash 1961: 290 with reference to the Gṛhya Sūtras.

For the superhuman powers including the ability to produce inexhaustible food (akkhīṇamahāṇasia), see section J. The scenario depicted here by the ĀvCū narrative was at a later period regarded as possibly controversial by some members of the Jain community. So Hīravijayasūri, the de facto leader of the Śvetāmbara renunciant community in north India at the end of the sixteenth century, is recorded in the Hīrapraśnottarāṇi (“Questions to Hīravijayasūri and his Responses”) compiled by Kīrtivijayagaṇin as having been asked whether the giving of miraculously generated food (paramānna) to bring the ascetics’ fasting to an end (pāraṇā) infringes correct procedure for the receiving of alms by monks. Hiravijaya’s response is slightly evasive: a single bowl (patadgraha) served the purpose of all of them and nothing about the food can lead to it being adjudged to have been improperly given (adatta).

H omits.

H: tesiṃ ca sevālabhakkhāṇaṃ paṃcaṇha vi sayāṇaṃ Gotamasāmiṇo taṃ laddhiṃ pāsiūṇa kevalanāṇam uppaṇṇaṃ, Diṇṇassa puṇo saparivārassa bhagavato chattāticchattaṃ pāsiūṇa kevalanāṇam uppaṇṇa, Koḍiṇṇassa vi sāmiṃ daṭṭhūṇa kevalanāṇam uppaṇṇaṃ. D p. 158b ll. 1–6: tesiṃ ca sevālabhakkagāṇaṃ jemaṃtāṇaṃ ceva jāo suhapariṇāmo, ciṃtiuṃ ca pavattā,—aho! amha kusalakammodao jaṃ jāo aṇabbhavuṭṭhisariso samatthasuyamahoyahiṇā aṇurattaguṇanihiṇā siddhipurisatthavāheṇa Goyamasāmiṇā saddhiṃ samāgamo … l. 5: evamāisaṃvegabhāvaṇovagayāṇa apuvvakaraṇāikameṇa addhabhutte ceva tesiṃ uppannam kevalaṇāṇaṃ.

ĀvCū kaddhemāṇo; for kaḍḍhai see Karashima 2012: 3.

ĀvCū pahāvitā.

That is, as they witnessed Goyama’s powers.

That is, they saw from a distance the double parasol, the royal emblem floating over the head of the Jina as he sat in his samavasaraṇa, before they saw Mahāvīra himself.

Cf. section D4.

H: bhagavaṃ āuṭṭo micchāmidukkaḍaṃ ti karei.

For this phrase see also ĀvCū p. 172 l. 6; H: tato bhagavao suṭṭhutaraṃ addhitī.

For āu see Bollée 1998: vol. 3 s.v. and also Poddar 2009: 924.

H: evaṃ sīsā vi suṃbakaḍasamāṇe 4, tumaṃ ca Goyamā mama kambalakaḍasamāṇo, aviya-cirasasiṭṭho ’si me Goyama. This relates to Sthānāṅga Sūtra sū. 350 p. 463: cattāri kaḍā pannattā taṃ jahā—suṃṭhakaḍe, vidalakaḍe, cammakaḍe, kaṃbalakaḍe; p. 67: Abhayadevasūri: tatra suṃṭhakaḍe tti tṛṇaviśeṣaniṣpannaḥ.

For sāmāṇa as equivalent of samāna see Sheth 1963 s.v.

Nominative singular in -e. However, this may be a misprint; Mette 1987: 144 n. 6 has cira-saṃsaṭṭho si. Goyamā exemplifies prolated final vowel in the vocative.

H: Paṇṇattīālāvagā bhāṇiyavvā jāva avisesamaṇāṇattā aṃte. The required textual insertion signalled by jāva derives from Bhagavatī Sūtra 14.7 ed. Dīparatnasāgara pp. 148–149 (slightly altered): Rāyagihe jāva evam vayāsī parisā padigayā, Goyamādī same bhagavaṃ Mahāvīre bhagavaṃ Goyamaṃ āmaṃtettā evaṃ vayāsī cirasaṃsaṭṭho’ si me Goyamā! cirasaṃthuo si me Goyamā! ciraparicio si me Goyamā! cirajusio si me Goyamā! cirāṇugao si me Goyamā! cirāṇuvattīsi me Goyamā! anaṃtaraṃ devaloe anaṃtaraṃ māṇussae bhave kiṃ paraṃ? maraṇā [Deleu 1970: 209: kiṃ paraṃ maraṇā] kāyassa bhedā io cuttā dovi tullā egaṭṭhā avisesamaṇāṇattā bhavissāmo.

For the formula of repentance micchā mi dukkaḍam as it occurs in the text of the paḍikkamaṇa ritual, see Āvaśyakasūtra pp. 337–341 (sū. 15–25) and cf. Williams 1963: 204.

According to Mette 1987: 143 n. 5 Goyama has already received Mahāvīra’s assurance that they will both be equal after death, referring to Uttarādhyayana Niryukti vv. 303–305. Without discussing textual priority at this stage, I would suggest that here the word of the Jinas could relate to what Mahāvīra is about to tell Goyama.

See note 1.

See note 85.

With regard to Prakrit nomenclature the mountain is called both Kavilāsa and Aṭṭhāvaya at Paumacariya 9.57 and 71. Devavimala, Hīrasaubhāgya 4.9 auto commentary glosses Aṣṭāpada as Kailāsa. See also Luithle-Hardenberg 2012–2013. For Mount Aṭṭhāvaya being frequently taken as Mount Kailāsa, see Luithle-Hardenberg 2011: 71. See Senapraśna notes p. 69 (very last question) for the rumour (praghoṣa; cf. Hīrapraśnottara 29.4) that Mount Aṣṭāpada is twelve yojanas from Vinītā, that is Ayodhyā (clearly wishing to associate Ṛṣabha’s “capital” with a conveniently located site nearby). Also Hīrasaubhāgya 13.13 for Aṣṭāpada’s proximity to Sāketa (Ayodhyā).

Shah 1987: 20–21 referring to Hemacandra Triṣaṣṭi 1 (GOS pp. 358–370).

See Chojnacki 1995: 93–112 and Cort 1990: 260–263 and 269–273.

VTK 18.12: Bharatena mohasiṃhaṃ hantum ivāṣṭāpadaḥ kṛtāṣṭapadaḥ / śuśubhe ’ṣṭayojano yo sa jayaty Aṣṭāpadagirīśaḥ //. For the śarabha see Slaje 2019: 772–776.

VTK p. 92 ll. 20–21: joaṇaṃtarāṇi a aṭṭhapayāṇi mehalārūvāṇi māṇusaalaṃghaṇijjāṇi kāriāṇi. ao ceva Aṭṭhāvao tti nāmaṃ pasiddhaṃ. VTK 49 p. 92 29–p. 93 l. 4 gives an abbreviated version of our story.

See for example Hegewald 2012: 64–65 and the Aṣṭāpada temple at Hastināpura.

According to Goldman 2007: 289 n. 16 “The term aṣṭāpada apparently refers to an eight-rowed gaming board. The word is known to Pāṇini as a technical term (6.3.125)”.

Thieme 1971: 417: “aṣṭāpada, board of eight [times eight] squares. There is clear evidence that it could serve also [that is as well as for chess] as the board on which the dice were thrown in gambling”; 408 n. 11: “Pali form aṭṭhapada (not aṭṭhā-)”. Thieme would seem to regard the primary sense of aṣṭāpada as “chess board”.

Ghatage 2004 s.v. aṭṭhāvaya 1. a game of dice played on a board with 8 × 8 places: Sūya 1.9.17, Samavāyaṃga 72, Nāyā 1.1.85, Rāyapaseṇāijja 806, Dasaveyāliya 3.4, Niśīthabhāṣya 4280. Bollée 2002: 196 quoting Thieme 1971: 421 for aṣṭāpada “as the board on which dice are thrown as well as a game in which dice are thrown and pieces are moved”. Hemacandra records the meaning “gambling board” for aṣṭāpada in his Sanskrit dictionary. See Abhidhānacintāmaṇi v. 487a: aṣṭāpadaḥ śāriphalam (comm. phalaṃ phalakam; for phalaka as another word for gambling board, see Thieme 1971: 20–21). However, he does not link the expression with the mountain.

Cf. Douglas 2020: 19 for the mountain Bhagirathi III looking like “the fragment of a colossal chessboard, black on white.”

The full verse is tāṃ gacchantīm āvagacchat tadānīṃ so ’paśyad ārād taruṇaṃ darśanīyam / siṃhāsanasthaṃ yuvatīsahāyaṃ krīḍantam akṣair girirājamūrdhni. Handelman & Shulman 1997: 75 refers to Ādiparvan 1.189 for Indra seeing a young man who turned out to be Śiva “playing at dice on a Himalayan peak”.

See Handelman and Shulman 1997.

While the Ardhamāgadhī suttas have little specific to say on the subject of dicing and gambling, the śrāvakācāra literature was quickly to put them at the head of a list of seven vices (vyasana); see Williams 1963: 247–248. For broader prespectives on gambling in ancient India see Szántó 2022: 341–349.

For Vesamaṇa’s connection with Siva (Śiva) see Aṃgavijjā ch. 51 for Vesamaṇa paired with Śiva, “an archaic feature” found first in Mahābhāṣya 6.3.26; see Sanderson 2012: 8–10 and Rāyapaseṇāijja for festivals of Siva and Vesamaṇa (Bollée 2002: 55). Anuyogadvāra Sūtra sū. 21 refers to worship of various gods including Rudda, Siva and Vesamaṇa.

A “royal seer” called Siva is the protagonist of a narrative found at Bhagavatī Sūtra 11.9. This describes how Siva, after considering the many modes of asceticism available, resolves to become a disāpokkhiya ascetic, whose regime requires making water libations at the four cardinal directions and thereafter concluding periods of fasting by consuming fruits, root vegetables, flowers, leaves and seeds. By this practice Siva gains the advanced but soteriologically deficient type of knowledge called ohi (JĀS ed. p. 522 ll. 11–12: vibbhaṃge nāmaṃ annāṇe samuppanne. For this type of non-knowledge, see Tatia 1951: 71 and 147 and cf. Deleu 1970: 175. Note that the recent Lāḍnūṃ edition p. 396 has the reading nāṇe). This leads him to make a flawed judgement about the number of continents and oceans to be found in the world. Eventually realising the inadequacy of his knowledge by comparison with that of the omniscient Mahāvīra, Siva takes initiation as a Jain monk. While this account of the career of the rājarisi Siva has been seldom noticed by scholarship, and its interpretation is not straightforward, there is little in the story which might support making a connection with the god Śiva as portrayed in the Sanskrit epic and the early Hindu purāṇas.

The name Īsāṇa, the equivalent of Īśāna which is used of Rudra-Śiva in Vedic, epic and early kāvya texts and was also the name of the pupil of the teacher Kuśika according to Pāśupata Śaiva tradition, occurs in Jain scriptures as the designation of the lord of the northern region and also of a category of gods who dwell in the eponymous heaven. One canonical reference to the god Īsāṇa is at first sight reminiscent of a Śaiva mythological theme, the fire emitting forehead-eye of Śiva. Bhagavatī Sūtra 3.1 (JĀS ed vol. 1 p. 136) describes how Īsāṇa totally incinerates the city of Balicaṃcā (Deleu 1970, 97: Camaracancā) with one frowning glance. However, this theme is unparalleled in early Jain textual tradition and does not seem to involve any significant allusion to a Śaiva narrative prototype. Note that in the following section of the Bhagavatī Sūtra the god Sakka is stated to be Īsāṇa’s superior.

See in particular Bakker 2019: 527–539; 553–565, Bisschop 2010, and Davidson 2002: 183–186.

The well-known inscription of Candragupta II at Mathurā points to the presence of Pāśupatas alongside Jains in a major site of north Indian religious interaction. See most recently Bakker 2019:494 and Saxena 2021: 1887–1891. Bhatt 2012 is commendably aware of the relevance of the issue of possible Jain familiarity with early Śaiva renunciants, but the evidence he adduces is too ill defined (aspects of the behavioral regime of Pāśupata ascetics are treated as characteristic of defective Jain monks; a correlation between Pāśupatasūtra 1.8 and Anuyogadvāra Sūtra sū. 27 is only approximate), over-interpreted (the rāyarisi Siva described by Bhagavatī Sūtra 11.9—see note 169 above—is said to be “a Śaiva monk”) and chronologically diffuse (e.g. the references made to the ninth century canonical commentator Śīlāṅka) to be fully useful.

See Bakker 2019: 436 note 8. For duckweed, see Hiltebeitel 2016: 41, translating MBh 13.129.52.

See, e.g., MBh 12.292.18ab: śaivālabhojanaś caiva tathācāmena vartayan; 13.129.52ab: phalamūlāśanaṃ vāyur āpaḥ śaivalabhakṣaṇam; 13.130.11ab: abhakṣair vāyubhakṣaiś ca śaivālottarabhojanaiḥ; 13.130.41ab: śaivālaṃ śīrṇaparṇaṃ vā tadvrato yo niṣevate.

See, for example, Kālidāsa, Abhijñānaśākuntalam 1.19.

See note 102.

See Devasūri, Pramāṇanayatattvālaṃkara 7.56, Śyādvādaratnākara autocommentary p.106 for kandaphalamūlaśaivālakavalana as a feature of mithyātva. The bhāṣya on Tattvārtha Sūtra 2.13 states that the category of vanaspati begins with śivala. See den Boer 2020: 145 n. 431.

See Mette 2010: 382 with note 299 for the Mahāvagga reference. In partial support of Mette there is a very approximate parallel between the ĀvCū story and the Mahāvagga’s description of the five erstwhile ascetic companions of the Buddha expressing reservations about his sincerity when they see him approaching in the distance after having left the forest; his altered physical demeanour causes them to realise that he has effected some sort of significant transformation. However, this parallel should not be drawn too far, since in the ĀvCū story Goyama had not previously encountered the ascetics.

See Wu 2017.

For bhagavaṃ in this story see note 33.

Malalasekara 1937–1938 gives one Pali example.

For Koṇḍañña see Wynne 2019: 123–125.

For ku- see Burrow 1955: 190. In his twelfth century Sanskrit version of this story Hemacandra, Triṣaṣṭi 6 obscures any possibility of wordplay by turning Dinna into Datta.

Dinna’s diet of fallen leaves corresponds to at least one dietary regime of the Vedic forest-dweller; for ascetics following such a regime who are mentioned in the Rāmāyaṇa, see Brockington 2020: 87. See Aupapātika Sūtra para. 74 p. 69 ed. Leumann for non-Jain ascetics who consume a variety of vegetable and plant substances which have “fallen on the ground” (parisaḍiya) and are presumably in a state of decay (parisaḍiya-kanda-mūla-taya-patta-puppha-phal’-āhārā).

Alternative Prakrit versions of the name have the nasalised form Koṃḍinna; see note 90. The alternation -oḍ- / -oṃḍ- is to be seen in the forms soḍīra / soṃḍīra, “bravery”; see Dundas 2022: 89–90.

See Bakker 2019: 602, Bisschop 2010: 486–487, and Davidson 2002: 183–186 for Pāśupata monasticism as response to the śramaṇa orders.

See Kafle 2020: 84 for the Pāśupata concept of ahiṃsā.

See section B. The expression kevalijñana, “the knowledge of the omniscient ones”, used as a synonym for Pāśupata teaching in several sources, is one that Jains also used of their own doctrine; see Bisschop 2020: 25 for the Pāśupata usage. For kevalijñāna, admittedly less common in Jain usage than kevalajñāna, “omniscience”, see for example the inscription in Jain 1978: 186 (Gujarat).

Kauṇḍinya on Pāśupātasūtra 1.9 (p. 18: kandāni yāni gṛhyante kandāś caiva prarohiṇaḥ / bījāni caiva pakvāni sarvāṇy etāni varjayet). Cf. Bronkhorst 2017: 582 for roots and fruits being characteristic of brahmans living in forest āśramas. For worship carried out by the Śaiva forest dweller with bulbs and roots see Śivadharmottara 12. 207: śivāśramavanasthaṃ yaḥ kandamūlādibhir yajet / sa divyān prāpnuyād bhogan īśvarasya pure sthitaḥ // (quoted in Bisschop, Kafle & Lubin 2021: 38).

Hara 2002: 72. Hara does not explain precisely how Kauṇḍinya twists the Pāśupata Sūtra’s endorsement of meat-eating so that non-meat-eating becomes the normative Pāśupata stance. Pāśupata Sūtra 5.16 māṃsam aduṣyaṃ lavaṇena vā following on from 5.14 bhaikṣyam and 5.15 pātrāgatam. See also Kauṇḍinya’s comment on p. 119: māṃsena vā lavaṇena vā ubhābhyām api sākṣād vā aduṣyam ity arthaḥ.

Vimalasūri’s Paumacariya (late fifth century) refers to a tāvasa presence at Vārāṇasī at around the same time as the Pāśupatas were becoming prominent in that city. See Dundas 2022: 59.

For modern representation of the ascetics of Mount Aṭṭhāvaya as stereotypical Hindu yogins (some with long Śaiva-style hair), see the front cover of Jaina Studies: Newsletter of the Centre of Jaina Studies SOAS, 5, 2010 and the rear cover of Devluk 1995. The list of tāvasas given in Aupapātika Sūtra para. 74 is not preoccupied with clothing or outward appearance (mentioning only vākavāsi, bark-wearing tāvasas) but rather with the locus of activity and the diet followed. Although the Pāśupata Sūtra does not prescribe any clothing for initiates other than loincloth and garland, the Nāṭyaśāstra 2.125–127 differentiates between Tāpasas who should be dressed in tatters, bark, and hide from Pāśupatas for whom many clothes of various colours are required. See Acharya 2013: 103. However, the Nāṭyaśāstra description may not necessarily provide a precise version of the actuality of Pāśupata external garb and instead be offering a prescription for theatrical representation.

For the Pāśupata view of siddhi, see Hara 2002: 35.

This stipulation seems to have been modified by the commentator Kauṇḍinya’s time. For the Pāśupata govrata or godharma, see Acharya 2013, Bakker 2019: 545, Kafle 2020: 81–82, 255–256 and 276 and Selva 2019: 322–325 with literature. The feminine form aṣṭāpadī, “eight-footed”, can designate a pregnant cow (Monier-Williams 1872 s.v. aṣṭāpad; cf. Slaje 2019: 775 n. 89 and p. 247 for the Vedic term meaning a “pregnant cow”), in which case aṣṭāpada, the Jain name for Kailāsa (see F), could by extrapolation possibly have the sense of “bull”. However, there seems to be no evidence of such a usage. No doubt it is only by chance that the Prakrit name Goyama can be construed as Sanskrit go-yama, “bull-restraint”, equivalent to the Pāśupata govrata.

See D7.

See D9.

See ĀvCū pp. 475–484 and cf. Schubring 1918: 45 for the story of Dasannabhadda. This would appear to be the first recorded example of what is not a particularly important exemplary narrative in Jain tradition. In the ĀvCū’s version of the story descriptions of the city of Dasannapura and its environs, king Dasannabhadda, his queen and Mahāvīra reproduced much of the wording and phraseology of the heavily compounded vaṇṇaya style found in the later quasi-kavva canonical suttas such as the Aupapātika Sūtra which only occurs sporadically in the ĀvCū. Balbir 1993a: 151 refers to the passing mention of Dasaṇṇabhadda at Uttarādhyayana Sūtra 18.44 as a king who abandoned the world to follow Mahāvīra and speculates that this may signify the existence of a canonical model for the story. Mention of this example of royal renunciation who is humbled by the god Sakka about the nature of riches but is otherwise not a particularly significant figure in Jain narrative appears to serve here as a prelude to Goyama’s lengthy account of another royal renunciant, Puṃḍarīya. Immediately after its version of the story of Goyama’s visit to Aṭṭhāvaya the Cauppannamahāpurisacariya introduces (pp. 328–331) the story of Dasannabhadda.

Descriptions of emaciated Jain ascetics are rare in the Ardhamāgadhī scriptural tradition. However, see the detailed account of the monk Dhaṇṇa in the Anuttaraupapātika Sūtra (Barnett 1907: 115–118).

ĀvCū pp. 483 l. 10–484 l. 10. Cf. Mette 2010: 383 who following Balbir describes Daśārṇabhadra as an example of the greater value of the spiritual as opposed to the material honouring of the Jina by the laity.

saṃjoggavippayoge vasaṇūsavaiḍḍhisakkāre.

See D13. See Wiley 2012: 151 for labdhi and ṛddhi.

See Aupapātika Sūtra para. 62 p. 66.

See e.g. MBh 9.44.83ab: sthulodarāḥ kṛśāṅgāś ca sthulāṅgāś ca kṛśodarāḥ; note also 13.95.2cd: parivrajantaṃ sthūlāṅgaṃ parivrajaṃ śunaḥ sakham.

Cf. Mette 2010: 140: thullao, “feiste”. The Prakrit form’s Sanskrit equivalent sthūla can encompass meanings such as “large”, “thick” and “bulky”. See Monier-Williams s.v. and cf. s.v. sthūra.

Cauppannamahāpurisacariya pp. 322 l. 26–327.

Cauppannamahāpurisacariya p. 323 l. 7: kaṇayaujjalasarisadehacchavī amāṇusasarisasarūvo.

Cauppannamahāpurisacariya p. 323 ll. 8–10: ṇūṇam esa jairūvo ko vi divvo, kaham aṇṇahā manussarūviṇā pīṇataṇuṇā eso samāroḍhuṃ tīrai, eso khu muṇivarehiṃ pi tivvatavovajjiyaladdhivisesehiṃ dukkham āruhijjati.

pīṇataṇuvihāyaṃ. Sanskrit vihāyas: Monier-Williams 1872: 953 “vigorous, active, mighty” (sources Vedic).

veṣa may mean “clothing”, but the ascetics do not seem to be referring to Goyama’s lack of the birch-bark apparel characteristic of brahman forest asceticism. I prefer to take veṣadhārin in the sense of “having the outward appearance”. cf. below: acintasattī māṇusavesadhārī ko vi divvo tumaṃ.

Śīlāṅka, Cauppannamahāpurisacariya pp. 324 ll. 2–5: ṇa hu eso mahaiharo māṇusāṇa samahigammo aisayaṃ viṇā, aisao ya tivvatavovisesovalambho, tavassino kisaṃgalimgino havanti, eso ya nāṇurūvavesadhārī ghaṇasiṇiddhapīvarataṇucchavī ya lakkhijjai, ṇa ya ettha sāisayatavassiyaṇaṃ vajjiya iha māṇusassa samāroho. The term aisaa (Sanskrit atiśaya) here appears to be the equivalent of laddhi / labdhi.

Śīlāṅka, Cauppannamahāpurisacariya p. 226 v. 679b: dhīramaiṃdaṃ va visālakaḍhiṇavacchatthalābhoyaṃ.

Śīlāṅka, Cauppannamahāpurisacariya p. 226 ll. 22–23: acintasattī māṇusavesadhārī ko vi divvo tumaṃ.

Municandra on Upadeśapada p. 117b v. 59: diṭṭho ya tehiṃ bhayavaṃ Goyamasāmī samuddhurasarīro / kaha eso iyarūvo girimmi eyammi laggihihī.

Sheth 1963 s.v samuddhura: dṛḍh, majbūt. Cf. Monier-Williams s.v. samuddhura: “lifted up, stretched out” (only one attestation).

See Cort 1995: 88–90. Devluk 1995 contains around one hundred representations of Goyama (images of various sorts, stylised depictions in tantric diagrams and examples from popular art) from the medieval period and after. It is difficult to generalise about the manner in which he is portrayed; while many of the popular representations do convey a sense of a robust and benign humanity, there is little direct sense that he is being consistently represented as corpulent. A canonical formula associating Goyama with receiving an abundance of food can hardly be regarded as defining his appearance. See Antagaḍadasāo. Barnett 1907: 94 describes Queen Siri bestowing on Goyama “abundant food, [drink, sweetmeats, and dainties]”. See text edition p. 23 a: viuleṇaṃ asaṇa 4 paḍivisajjeti. Cf. Nāyā p. 84 l. 3–4: taheva jāva vipulaṃ asaṇaṃ 4 uvakkhaḍāveti.

Cort 1995 with a slight misrepresentation of the narrative scenario. Triṣaṣṭiśalākapuruṣacarita 10.9.166–261 (translation Johnson 1962). Cf. Wiley 2012: 146.

Hemacandra, Triṣaṣṭiśalākāpuruṣacarita 10.9.239 which gives a Sanskrit version of the ĀvCū narrative mentions how “the god, Vaiśramaṇa’s attendant deity, accordingly mastered by close attention the Puṇḍarīka chapter enunciated by Gautama” (etadarthaṃ Puṇḍarīkādhyayanaṃ Gautamoditaṃ / jagrāhaikasaṃsthayāpi Śrīdasāmānikaḥ suraḥ; mistranslated by Johnson 1962: 245). This reference is otherwise incomprehensible in the context of Hemacandra’s narrative which lacks any account of the deity’s rebirth as the teacher Vajrasvāmin and suggests that the ĀvCū narrative was here utilised carelessly.

Triṣaṣṭiśalākāpuruṣacarita 10.9.189b: svarṇābhaṃ pīvarākṛtim.

Triṣaṣṭiśalākāpuruṣacarita 10.9.190: te mithaḥ procire śailaṃ vayam etaṃ kṛśā api / na roḍhum īśmahe sthūla ārokṣyaty eṣa tat katham.

Triṣaṣṭiśalākāpuruṣacarita 10.9.238a: tat pīnatvaṃ kṛśatvaṃ vā na pramāṇaṃ tapasvinām.

ĀvCū p. 384 l. 3. In the ĀvCū story of Dasannabhadda p. 479 l. 10 Dasannabhadda’s queen is described as sukumālapāṇipādā. Puṇḍarīka is described as pīnāṅga at Triṣaṣṭiśalākāpuruṣacarita 10.9.237b. Johnson 1962: 245 for Puṇḍarīka as “fat”. Cf. Fynes 1998: 272.

See Appendix 3.

Śīlāṅka, Cauppannamahāpurisacariya p. 324 ll. 6–7 introduces his retelling of the story of Puṃḍarīa thus: “In respect to this (i.e. Goyama’s healthy physique) weakness is not a cause of the calm of deliverance nor is strength a non-cause” (ṇa ettha dubbalayā kāraṇaṃ kallāṇasaṃtīe, ṇa ya akāraṇaṃ baliyayā). Municandrasūri (eleventh century) in a version of this story given in his commentary on Haribhadra, Upadeśapada v. 110 expands: baliyattaṃ abaliyattaṃ na kāraṇaṃ suddhasamaṇabhāvassa. Mette 2010: 187: renders akāraṇa as “bedeutungslos”.

See Balbir 2020 for these terms. Cf. ĀvNiry v. 741: hoi pasatthaṃ mokkhassa kāraṇaṃ …

For this type of karma, see Wiley 1999.

For napuṃsaka as belonging to the third sex, see Zwilling & Sweet 1996 and for the lesā (Sanskrit leśyā), see Wiley 2000.

H on ĀvNir v. 184 takes āseviyabahula as a Prakritic reverse compound: bahulāsevitaiḥ -anekadhāsevitair ity arthaḥ, prākṛtaśailyā pūrvāparanipāto ’tantraṃ, viṃśatyā anyataraiḥ sthānair badhnātīti gāthārthaḥ.

ĀvNiry vv. 178a-81 (cf. 451–453 Āryarakṣitavijaya abbreviated; L vv. 271.1–3) give the twenty sthānas, described as kāraṇa:

paḍhamo titthayarattaṃ vīsahi ṭhāṇehi kāsī ya // arihaṃta siddha pavayaṇa guru thera bahussue tavassīsu / vacchallayā eesiṃ abhikkhanāṇovaoge ya // daṃsaṇa viṇae āvassae ya sīlavvae niraiyāro / khaṇalavo tavacciyāe veyāvacce samāhī ya // appuvvanāṇagahaṇe suyabhattī pavayaṇe pabhāvaṇayā / eehiṃ kāraṇehiṃ titthayarattaṃ lahai jīvo //

After describing (v. 745) how “Goyama and the other disciples listen to the Sāmāyika section to gain knowledge and the understanding of good and bad dispositions” (Goyamamāī sāmāiyaṃ tu kiṃkāraṇaṃ nisāminti / ṇāṇassa taṃ tu suṃdaramaṃgulabhāvāṇa uvaladdhī), ĀvNiry then provides (vv. 746–748) a condensed and rather unusual delineation of the Jain soteriological path to deliverance as stemming from the attainments described in v. 745.

Although it was early established in Jainism that liberated souls lack any form of physical embodiment, the term asarīratā, “bodilessness”, is nonetheless unusual.

See Mette 1987: 147 and cf. Mette 2010: 184–188 and 381–382.

See section D9d.

See D7. Cauppanna p. 324 l. 1 describes Goyama paying homage to Ṛṣabha and then “meditating on the blessed one” (bhayavaṃtaṃ jhāyamāṇo). Here jhā has the less specialised sense of early Jain psychological teaching.

I do not here interpret jāva as an insertion marker. The phrase ohayamaṇa is most likely an abbreviation of ohayamanasaṃkappo; see note 234. ĀvCū = Jñātādharmakathāḥ Sūtra. The full text is: jeṇeva asogavaṇiyā jeṇeva asogavarapāyave jeṇeva puḍhavisilāpaṭṭage teṇeva uvāgacchati uvāgacchettā jāva silāpaṭṭayaṃ ohayamaṇa jāva jhiyāti.

Jnātādharmakathāḥ Sūtra p. 24 l. 8: ohayamaṇasaṃkappā jāva jhiyāti. In the third appendix of his edition Muni Jambūvijaya quotes (p. 523) the ṭīkā on this passage; yāvat karaṇāt karatalapalhatthamunī aṭṭajhāṇovagayā jāva jhiyāi ti ārtadhyānaṃ dhyāyatīti. For aṭṭajhāṇa / ārtadhyāna see Hooper 2020: 551–552.

Cf. Mette 2010: 383–384.

A derivative from mahāṇasa, “kitchen” (for further on this term see below). Ghatage 2004 quotes Paṇhāvagaraṇāiṃ 6.6: akkhīṇamahānasiehiṃ cāraṇehiṃ (ahiṃsā samaṇuciṇṇā); Ṣaṭkhaṇḍāgama 4.1.42: ṇamo akkhīṇamahāṇasāṇaṃ; etc.

Aupapātika Sūtra para. 24 ll. 7–8 and 15: eṇaṃ kāleṇaṃ teṇaṃ samayeṇaṃ samaṇassa bhagavao Mahāvīrassa aṃtevāsī bahave niggaṃthā bhagavaṃto … appegaiyā akkhīṇamahāṇasiyā … Abhayadevasūri comments thus: mahānasam annapākasthānaṃ tadāśritatvād vānnam api mahānasam ucyate, tataś cākṣīṇaṃ—puruṣaśatasahasrebhyo ’pi dīyamānaṃ svayam abhuktaṃ sat tathāvidhalabdhiviśeṣād atruṭitaṃ tac ca tan mahānasam—bhikṣālabdhabhojanam akṣīṇamahānasaṃ tad asti teṣāṃ te tathā. Cf. Leumann’s edition s.v. akkhīṇa and notes to Aupapātika Sūtra; see Bollée 1997: 331 for a list of superhuman attributes including akkhīṇamahāṇasiya given in the Praśnavyākaraṇāni Sūtra. See also Amaramuni ed. p. 61: “When an ascetic endowed with this power collects alms from a kitchen, the remaining food in that kitchen would not exhaust even if hundreds of thousands of people were fed from it. The food in this kitchen would exhaust only when either the donor himself has eaten or that ascetic has eaten the alms he collected.” The akkḥīṇamahāṇasiyaladdhi is mentioned at ĀvNiry v. 766 which describes its use by Vairasāmī, the subsequent birth of the god who has heard Goyama preach on the summit of Mount Aṭṭhāvaya.

Wiley 2012: 145–146 refers to Hemacandra’s Triṣaṣṭi version of this story; p. 165: labdhi no. 27: “akṣīṇa-mahānasī (Śvetāmbara: Pravacanasāroddhāra). With a small amount of food placed in the bowl [of a mendicant] hundreds and thousands of mendicants are satisfied; nevertheless, the bowl remains full. It becomes empty only when consumed by a medicant having this attainment. Hemacandra associates this with the gaṇadhara Gautama.” pp. 175–176: labdhi no. 41 (Digambara: Ṣaṭkhaṇḍāgama): “akṣīṇa-mahānasa. Just one substance from among the assortment of leftover food in the middle of a thāli (a plate from which food that is fed to a muni is taken) after the muni has eaten is not diminished, although it was eaten by the entire army of a Cakavartin on this day” (Trilokaprajñapti, dated by Wiley to c. 500 CE). Vimalasūri, Paumacariya 14.81–85 lists monks of advanced attainments such as exuding (savin) honey, milk and ghee (see Wiley 2012: 175), but does not include akkhīṇamahāṇasa. Chapter 8 of the Paumacariya gives a list of 54 magic powers gained through austerity by Rāvaṇa and his brothers, but akkhīṇamahāṇasa is not among them.

In Śvetāmbara tantra mastering this power was held to be the result of the ritual centring on the sūrimantra performed by a monk who had newly attained the rank of ācārya and was thus required to recreate himself as a version of Goyama, Mahāvīra’s chief disciple and source of the monastic lineage. See Dundas 1998 and Gough 2021: 169–174. Devavimala, Hīrasaubhāgya 4.7 autocomm. understands Gautama’s status as first of the disciples as deriving either from his possession of labdhis or through having received dīkṣā before the others.

Mette 2010 makes no significant comment on this passage. Balbir 1993a does not mention it in her summary of the verses relating to Vairasāmī. The standard procedure for a Jain renunciant who has just received renunciant initiation is to set out to receive food from a lay donor. It would be unwise, however, to regard this formal mode of signalling new status as being formally established during the middle centuries of the first millennium, which is the approximate time when the ĀvCū or its oral precursor was composed.

This issue was addressed in the late sixteenth century Hīrapraśnottarāṇi (30.20) which records how Hīravijayasūri was asked by a certain Paṇḍit Velarṣigaṇin how the miraculous food conjured up by Gautama to break the ascetics’ fast could be appropriate for monks since it had not actually been given by anybody (tatra labdhiparamānnam adattam iti sādhūnāṃ kathaṃ kalpate). This question seems to imply the understanding that the food has not actually been given by a donor but has been produced by Mahāvīra’s disciple. Hīravijayasūri’s reply is not immediately to the point: because just a single receptacle (patadgraha) serves the purpose (prāpta) of all the ascetics through the power of akṣīṇamahānasalabdhi, it must be considered that in this respect nothing which has not been given is understood as involved in this respect (atrādattaṃ kim api jñātaṃ nāstīti bodhyam iti).

Hīrapraśnottarāṇi 3.42 posits the general question of whether Gautama went on the food collecting round alone or with a group of monks (Gautamasvāmī gocaryām ekāky eva gatavān atha vā sasaṅghāṭakaḥ). The response is that according to scriptural texts such as the Bhagavatī Sūtra he as a rule (prāyaḥ) went on his own, but discussion of whether this is right or wrong is not appropriate since he belonged to the category of āgamavihārin, that is the six varieties of monks who were in possession of the three types of advanced knowledge or were familiar with fourteen, ten or nine Pūrva scriptures.

According to Cauppannamahāpurisacariya p. 327 l. 1 Goyama asked the new Jain monks what food they wanted when they were in a saṇṇivesa (ekammi saṇṇivese). See Aupapātika Sūtra para. 69 for sannivesa as the last and least impressive of a stereotyped list of centres of habitation. Cf. Mette 1974: 43: “Niederlassung”. However, see Hoernle’s translation of the Upāsakadaśāḥ Sūtra p. 54 for Goyama going to the city (nayara) of Vāṇiyagāma for alms and then to the “suburb” (sannivesa) of Kollāga (Pkt. Kollāya). Cf. Amaramuni, Illustrated Upāsakadashā and Anuttaraupapātikadashā Sūtra pp. 80–81. However, Stein 1948: 13 quotes commentarial explanations which suggest the interpretation of a stopping place for shepherds, cow-herds and traders; see Schubring 1977: 53: “Karawanen-Rastorte”. Bollée 2002: 15: “halting place for a procession” is not clarified. It is likely that a sannivesa (Sanskrit saṃniveśa) is a liminal location, an appropriate place for former ascetics leaving the wilderness to reenter the inhabited world.

See note 131.

See Senapraśna 13.19 for two-sensed creatures arising in wine, honey and curd. Senapraśna 27.20 (21?; notes p. 26): Vijayasenasūri states that the food conjured by Goyama is not vaikriya but is a specific product of the labdhi.

For honey in the madhuparka, see Oberlies 2007: 141–171; p. 145: the madhuparka is mixed in a kaṃsa/kāṃsya pot (cf. p. 156 n. 106) and p. 153: the use of honey signifies entry into a group.

Vimalasūri, Paumacariya 4.80–86. Kauṇḍinya makes clear that only brahmans could be initiated as Pāśupata ascetics: see Pāśupatasūtra 1.7–9 with the commentary of Kauṇḍinya.

MBh 3.2.1ab: vanaṃ yiyāsatāṃ viprās tasthur bhikṣābhujo ’gratah. Cf. Bronkhorst 2017: 582 on brahman mendicants being unable to feed themselves in the forest.

MBh 3.2.10–11 and 13.

MBh 3.4.1ab: dīpyamānaḥ svavapuṣā jvalann iva svavapuṣā.

MBh 3.4.2–3d: yat te ’bhilaṣitaṃ rājan sarvam etad avāpsyasi / aham annaṃ pradāsyāmi sapta pañca ca te samāḥ // phalamūlāmiṣaṃ śākaṃ saṃskṛtaṃ yan mahānase / caturvidhaṃ tad annādyam akṣayyaṃ te bhaviṣyati //.

MBh 3.4.5–8:

The translation is mine, following van Buitenen 1975: 229.

Smith’s abridged rendering of the Mahābhārata refers to the episode only in passing without translating any of it. See Smith 2009: 164.

See Feller 2016: 61: “the kitchen (mahānasa) is not further described, nor is its mode of functioning clearly explained. It is also not clear whether the kitchen was gifted by Sūrya or whether it was already in the Pāṇḍavas’ possession”. As for the mahānasa, the nature of which is undescribed in the Mahābhārata passage, this is understood by Feller as being “kitchen”, the rendering also given by van Buitenen; for Biardeau it designates some sort of cooking pot (“marmite”). The “kitchen” interpretation no doubt reflects the sense of mahānasa in standard Sanskrit and Prakrit.; for the latter see Hāla’s Sattasaī (household kitchen) and Nāyā 1.8 (palace). However, such a domestic establishment is not entirely probable in terms of the wilderness situation in which the Pāṇḍavas and the brahmans find themselves. There is of course no reason to assume that in an imaginative text there should be precise conformity to realia, and magic cooking pots and food bowls are a staple of popular lore and legend both in India and throughout the world. See for example Kathāsaritsāgara taraṅga 3 vv. 46–50 (Tawney 1924: 22) for two asuras fighting over shoes which give the power of flight and a receptacle (bhājana) which produces whatever food is thought of. See also Ravishankar 2018: 266 (for a comical allusion to an akṣayapatra in the nineteenth century) and cf. Higham 2018: 106 for an Arthurian example. Some manuscripts of the Mahābhārata include a verse after 3.4.2, possibly intended to clarify the meaning or context of mahānasa, in which Sūrya instructs Yudhiṣṭhira to take a copper pot he has given him which will remain full until Draupadī has eaten (gṛhīṣva piṭharaṃ tāmraṃ mayā dattaṃ narādhipa / yāvad vāñchati Pāñcālī pātreṇānena suvrata). See Āraṇyakaparvan edition part 1 (Sukthankar 1942), p. 17 note 3. It may also be that the Pāṇḍavas and their entourage are being envisaged by the Mahābhārata as a nomadic group redolent of the Vedic period. In Vedic literature, the term mahānasa denotes the ‘heavily loaded wagon’ in which the nomadic bands transported their cooking equipment and perhaps prepared their food, and it is this perhaps deliberately archaic sense of the term which has to be born in mind in relation to the Pāṇḍavas’ food preparation while wandering in the wilderness. See Sadovski 2009: 122–123.

See Biardeau 2002: 417–418.

For small scale links between the Mahābhārata and a Jain text, see Dundas 2014 and cf. Dundas 2012: 565–567.

See section D6.

MBh 3.2.58 (= Mānavadharmaśāstra 3.285): vighasāśī bhavet tasmān nityaṃ cāmṛtabhojanaḥ / vighasaṃ bhuktaśeṣaṃ tu yajñaśeṣam tathāmṛtam; Olivelle 2005: 123 translates: “He should become a man who always eats “residue” and who always partakes of “ambrosia”. “Residue” is what remains after people have eaten, and “ambrosia” is the leftovers of a sacrifice.” The term vighasa can specifically refer to food eaten by ascetics. See Wezler 1978 and for śeṣa in general, see Malamoud 1996: 7–22.

See Vinayaprabha (Kharatara Gaccha 14th c. CE), Gautam Rās v. 29 (in Vinayasāgar 1987: 129):

A Hindi comic book retelling of Goyama’s career (Divākar Citrakathā no. 32) identifies this as his defining feature in its title Amṛt Puruṣ Gautam (“Gautama the Ambrosia-Man”).

Uttarādhayana Sūtra, notes, p. 317; Charpentier reproduces the Sanskrit preamble to D’s Prakrit narrative.

Collins 2020: 81–82.

Detige 2020.

Cort 2001 and cf. Detige 2020.

Śīlāṅka, Cauppannamahāpurisacariya p. 326: tao te tāvasagaṇā tappahāvao samārūḍhā Aṭṭhāvayagirivaraṃ. vaṃdiūṇ bhattibharanibbharamāṇasa Usabhasāmiṃ samāgayā gaṇaharino samīvaṃ. ’saphalo amha esa parissamo jaṃ tumehiṃ samaṃ daṃsaṇaṃ jāyaṃ’.

Cauppannamahāpurisacariya has a connection with the Āvaśyaka textual corpus and evinces no interest in the biography of Vairasāmī.

Quoted by Premī 1942: 352. Premī refers to Muni Kalyāṇavijaya’s view that this practice was in fact universally that diet.

Silk 2008: 215–217.

The ĀvNiry describes how Vairasāmī was in possession of the akkhīṇamahāṇasiya laddhi which he deployed to feed the lay community.

Dhaky 2004: 116 dates the Uttarādhyayana Niryukti to c. 525 CE. Dhaky’s dating (which according to note 14 follows Vijayajinendra’s Niryukti-saṃgrahaḥ) seems to imply that any exegetical texts must be subsequent to the “canonical councils”. On the other hand, Ollett 2017: 76 refers to ‘leading authorities’ for Bhadrabāhu the author of the niryuktis as 1st century CE, with his explanations setting in motion a process of commentary which lasted for several centuries. Ollett’s perspective would imply commentary on the earliest āgama texts perhaps in proximity to their formulation. Further uncertainty about dating can be seen from the presence in UttNiry vv. 289 and 293 of two examples of the past tense with the indeclinable suffix -ī(y)a (see notes 288 and 292). According to Esposito 2011: 44–45, the Vasudevahiṇḍī which she dates to c. 400 AD (p. 29) gives the first examples of this form. Cf. Ollett 2018: 149 for the form being taught in the Prākṛtaprakāśa. It is unclear whether the presence of this type of past tense in the UttNiry confirms a latish date for the UttNiry of the sort advocated by Dhaky or a pre-Vasudevahiṇḍī date for the text on the grounds that the two examples therein are the earliest identifiable.

ĀvNiryL ’s verse enumeration is 277–299 (with Hindi trans pp. 211 ff.). See Mahetā 1989: 96–100 for the overall number of UttNiry verses given as 607 as against Bollée’s 557.

Ś (pp. 270 l. 34–272 l. l.7) truncates discussion of the niryukti verses, omitting any reference to verses 296b-298 while filling out explanation of the others with details deriving from the subsequent Prakrit narrative (p. 272 l. 8–277 l. 10) which replicates that of the ĀvCū. D (pp. 153a–158b) gives the full story of Goyama and the ascetics at the beginning of Uttarādhyayanasūtra chapter ten (Dumapattayaṃ). No reference is made to UttNiry. Cf. Alsdorf 1998: 816: the nijjuttis are included in the oldest ṭīkās such as Śāntisūri’s on the Uttarādhyayana but not in the younger ones such as Devendra’s on the Uttarādhyayana, which reflects a dwindling of interest in these texts.

See note 1.

Ś: Magahāpuranagaraṃ Rājagṛham.

UttNiryL: pavvajja Gāgilissa.

Bollée 1994 s.v Gāgī̌li: “usually called Gāgali”.

UttNiryL’s Hindi rendering (p. 212) understands this trio to consist of Gāgili and his parents.

pahiakittī = Sanskrit prathitakīrtiḥ. Ś p. 271 ll. 1–3: nāyao pahiakitti’ tti nāyakaḥ sakalajagatsvāmī jñāta eva vā jñātaka udārakṣatriyaḥ, nyāyato vā prathimā-sakalajagatpratyākhyātā kīrtir yasya sa tathā.

UttNiryL: nisīhiā (presumably an endingless accusative and the object of vandai in the next verse). See note 282.

This verse links up syntactically with Usabhassa Bharahapiuṇo in v. 288. For aṭṭhavihakammagaṇṭhi see Uttarādhyayana Sūtra 29.31.

Uttarādhyayana Sūtra chapter thirty-four gives a full exposition of the lessā / leśyā theory in which an earlier version of the teaching is couched in “old” śloka verses interspersed with āryā verses; see Dundas 2002: 100 and also Roth 1983: 137 n. 88.

Ś p. 271 ll. 5–7: niṣṭhitārthasya samāptasakalakṛtasya yad vā niṣedhe sakalakarmanirākaraṇalakṣaṇe bhavā naiṣedhikī muktigatis tayā niṣṭhitārtho yas tasya Ṛṣabhasya.

Ś p. 271 l. 4: nisīhiya tti niṣidhyante nirākriyante asyāṃ karmāṇīti naiṣedhikī nirvāṇabhūmiḥ. Bollée 1994 s.v. nisīhi(yā) quotes Leumann 1934 (but this is absent from his bibliography; “Abkehr” = 2010 LD trans p. 25 n. 4, “withdrawal”) and Schubring 1935: para. 136 (“Weggang”). For later Digambara usages of the tem see Settar 1986.

There is a possible deliberate correlation here between the name of the mountain Aṭṭhāvaya and the eight (aṭṭha) types of karma. Cf. ĀvNiry v. 920 for aṭṭhavihaṃ kammaṃ.

That is, he will attain liberation at the end of that existence.

Ś p. 271 l. 9: rātriṃ divaṃ cāvasthāpayati, no ’sādhuṃ saṃharaṇādinā ’nītam api (“The mountain can accomodate a monk for a day and a night but not a non-monk, even though he has been brought there through means such as abduction”). The reference to Veyaḍḍha / Vaitāḍhya (on which see Alsdorf 1974: 77) might suggest abduction by vijjāharas / vidyādharas who are strongly associated with that mountain range, although narrative examples generally involve women. The version of this story found in Śīlāṅka’s Cauppannamahāpurisacariya, which does not contain the theme of Vairasāmī’s previous birth, has a vijjāhara rather than Vesamaṇa listening to Goyama’s sermon.

Ś p. 271 l. 9: kila iti parokṣāptavādasūcaka. However, kira could simply be emphatic here. For the literature on kira and its meaning see Tieken 2009.

The ascetics as non-Jain monks are by definition precluded from dwelling on the mountain summit.

The form kāsīa is an example of the past tense with the indeclinable suffix -ī(y)a; cf. note 269. For explanations of this verbal form, see Norman 2001: 224 and Oberlies 1997.

Ś p. 271 l. 12: ārohatīty atra padapracāreṇeti gamyate.

Ś describes this example given by Mahāvīra as the reason that the gods are familiar with a rumour about the mountain, although this is not mentioned in any verse; this commentary then goes on to refer to portions of vv. 294 and 295.

Compare v. 293. This epithet is also used of Mahāvīra in vv. 286 and 305.

Cf. note 269 and Bollée 1994 s.v. For pavvāvesīya as the indeclinable past tense of the causative of pavvayai = Sanskrit pravrajati see Bollée s.v. pavvåvai.

A fast of four days duration.

UttNiryL: pataṇukammo (Hindi: alpkarmā Indra) which I follow in the translation. Bollée’s reading payar’aṇukammo is most likely metri causa. However, payara is not listed in his glossary.

The ĀvCū describes the god’s rebirth in its expansion of ĀvNiry v. 764. See Kirfel 1967: 293 and 305 for the Valgu heaven.

That is, the future teacher Vaira.

Of the three ascetic names Bollée 1994 gives only Koḍinne with upper case (and in the glossary s.v. he refers to the occurrence of the name Koḍinna at Utt Nijj v. 170).

UttNiryL Hindi pāṃc-pāṃc sau parivār. For the difficulties of this expression see below.

Read tesim o? Bollée describes -o as an emphatic suffix.

For fasts involving the fourth, sixth and eighth meals and their duration see Roth 1983: 168–169. This verse and v. 298 are not commented on by Ś.

The grammar of saccitto and accitto in the second line is uncertain: the forms apparently agree with ahāro.

For sukka used of the ascetics, see note 104.

Ś: trayo vargāḥ yeṣāṃ te.

Ś p. 271 l. 14–15: tām iti pratītām eva bhagavati jaṅghācaraṇarūpalabdhirūpām; this is inserted after a cursory reference to UttNiry v. 295. See v. 292 for Vesamaṇa’s iḍḍhi.

UttNiryL: egassa ya parisādaṃsaṇeṇa egassa ya jiṇammi.

That is, the perfect knowledge which is omniscience.

Ś p. 271 ll. 18–19: kṣīrānnabhojanam eva viśuddhādhyavasāyaviśeṣotpattinibandhanatayā hetuḥ kāraṇaṃ kṣīrabhojanahetu. Khīra is a synonym of pāyasa (see section D12), but there has been no mention in the UttNiry of this being supplied to the ascetics. The suggestion seems to be that they have reflected upon the miraculous provenance of this food. Ś does not explain the other two causes.

See v. 301a.

Ś pp. 271–272 devotes as much space to explaining vv. 303–306 as to the preceding verses.

See Mette 1987: 144 n. 7 for this verse being connected with Bhagavatī Sūtra 14.7.

Ś pp. 271–272: āto tti ārṣatvād āho svit.

See note 286.

UttNiryL: tab kucch jānate huē bhī bhagavān Mahāvīr ne prathitkīrti Gautam se pucchā; Ś p. 271 ll. 32–33: ’jāṇagapucchaṃ’ ti jñāyakapṛcchayā pṛcchati, na hi tasya bhagavataḥ samastavijñeyaviṣayavijñānacakṣuṣaḥ, kva cid avijñānam asti, kintu Gautamaṃ pratibodhayann ittham upālabhate (UttNiry v. 305 is not printed in Ś’s mūla). For jāṇaga, see Bollée 2002: 96–97. He notes that Leumann refers to the terms jānaka and pṛcchaka as being used of Buddhas and the fact that they are not used of Mahāvīra in either Buddhist or Jain literature. Bollée (p. 97 note 676) also refers to his own Studien zum Sūyagaḍa Pt. 1 (Bollée 1997) p. 75 for Sūyagaḍa 1.1.1.18 where the term jāṇayā is taken as referring to Buddhists. However, see ĀvNiry v. 1616, quoted by Balbir 1993b: 74, where jāṇaga means simply “knower”.

The word of the gods must relate to the rumour about Mount Aṭṭhāvaya. Ś p. 272 ll. 3–4: asmadvacanataḥ [= v. 303] śataśo ’pi śrutān na viniścayam api vihitavān, devavacanāt tu sakṛd apy ākarṇitāt tatheti pratipādyāṣṭāpadaṃ prati prayāta ity aho te mohavijṛmbhitam ity uktaṃ bhavati.

Ś p. 272 ll. 6–7: śrutvā tad upālambhavaco bhagavataḥ … mithyācārād … pratikramitum upatiṣṭhati udyacchati. tanniśrayeti Gautamaniśrayā anuśiṣṭiṃ śikṣām evad [sic] bhāvārthas tu sampradāyād avaseyah.

UttNiry vv. 307–309 describe how the Jina enunciates the verse about the leaf of the tree.

The Uttarādhyayana Cūrṇi gives a highly abbreviated condensation of the UttNiry version of the story with the only noteworthy divergence being that the ascetics “end their fast with excellent food” (pāraṇagaṃ paramanneṇaṃ).

The UttNiry version of Goyama’s visit to Aṭṭhāvaya with its lack of reference to the akkhīṇamahāṇasiya theme can be seen reflected in the Vividhatīrthakalpa. See Jinaprabhasūri, Vividhatīrthakalpa 49 (Chojnacki 1995: 101–102 and Cort 1990: 271–272 with errors) for an abbreviated version of the story: slightly incoherent in terms of the ĀvCū version (and as Chojnacki p. 102 n. 47 points out, slightly different from Triṣaṣṭi 10) and no reference made to the tāpasas’ diet or their being magically fed by Goyama. See Vinayaprabha, Gautam Rās v. 25 (in Vinayasāgar 1987) for Goyama’s pilgrimage to Aṣṭāpada; general reference is made to the ascetics and Goyama’s possession of labdhi, but no specific reference is made to akkhīṇamahāṇasiya.

Ś p. 277 ll. 16–17 states that the story of V is to be ascertained from the ĀvCū.

See Leumann 2010: 77 n. 1.

See for example, Leumann 2010: 85.

See sections D1 and D12 and also Leumann 2010: 77 n. 1.

Literally “emerged from …” This is a slightly unusual expression to describe the rebirth process and the expected usage would probably involve uvavaṇṇo, “arisen (in the womb of the next mother)”. It may reflect the slightly contracted awkwardness of the opening ĀvCū phrase (p. 390 l. 8): … tao caittāṇaṃ Tuṃba[va]ṇasaṇṇivese Dhanagiri ṇāma gāhāvatī (effectively reproduced by H vol. 3 pp. 109–110: tato caiūṇa Avaṃtījaṇavae Tuṃbavaṇasannivese Dhaṇagirī nāma ibbhaputto), whereby the locative may not refer to the rebirth destination of the future Vairasāmī but the habitation of Dhaṇagiri his father-to-be.

It is unclear what sort of location is meant here by sannivesa. Böhtlingk & Roth 1852–1875 s.v. saṃniveśa renders it as “Niederlassung”; cf. Mette 1974: 43. Hoernle (Upāsakadaśāḥ Sūtra, translation p. 54) takes it in the sense of “suburb” in contrast to nayara, “city”. However, Aupapātika Sūtra paragraph 69 gives sannivesa as the last of a stereotyped list of centres of habitation in what is clearly descending order of significance and permanence. Stein 1948: 13 quotes commentarial explanations which suggest that the term designates a stopping place for shepherds, cow-herds and traders; cf. Barnett 1907: 45 n. 1: a traders’ or herdsmen’s settlement. Cf. also Schubring 1977: 53: “Karawanen-Rastorte”; Bollée 2002: 15: “halting place for a procession” is slightly less convincing. At any rate sannivesa seems here to designate a fairly inconsequential place such as a wayside inn.

For Tumbavaṇa as modern Tumain (eastern Malwa; H adds Āvaṃtījaṇavae, ‘in Avantī’ i.e. Malwa;), see Bakker 2019: 310 and Flügel 2020: 24. While archaeological evidence suggests that Tumain was an ancient and significant site, Varāhamihira, Bṛhatsaṃhitā 14.16 does not seem to understand Tumbavana to be a town or city but a region, undoubtedly afforested as its name would suggest. Hemacandra, Sthavirāvalī 12.3b: tatra Tumbavanam iti vidyate sanniveśanam. Fynes 1998: 216 translates Sanskrit sanniveśana as the “district” called Tumbavana.

The Prakrit might be punctuated alternatively as piusagāsa-m-allīṇaṃ. ĀvCū p. 390 ll. 13–391 l. 4 describes how the newly born Vaira realised that his father had renounced to become a monk. Wishing to emulate him he wailed aloud for six months to his mother’s dismay until she handed him over to his father. I take allīṇa in the standard Prakrit sense of “gone” rather than in the Ardhamāgadhī sense of “restrained” discussed by Yagi-Hohara 2018. See Leumann 2010: 77 fn. 1.

See ĀvCū p. 391 ll. 6–8 for the infant Vaira signalling to his nurses when he wished to urinate and defecate in order to avoid destroying life forms.

I translate māūyasamanniyaṃ in accord with H’s gloss mātrā ca samanvitam. ĀvCū p. 393 ll. 4–5 describes how the young Vaira’s mother decided to take renunciation in the wake of both her husband and her son. However, this was not a particularly noteworthy event in Vaira’s youthful career as summarised by ĀvNiry compared to his mother’s dramatic but futile attempt in front of an adjudicating king to prevent her son following his father into the monk’s life by calling out to him three times (ĀvCū p. 392 l. 2–3: evaṃ tiṇṇi vāre vāharito ṇa eti …). While emendation may be unnecessary, I suggest a possible adjustment of the text to read māūyāsanniyaṃ (or -saṇṇiyaṃ), “addressed by name by his mother”, with sanniya as the equivalent of Sanskrit saṃjñita. This form sanniya / saṇṇiya is admittedly not found in Sheth 1963, but the citation of saṃjñita in Böhtlingk & Roth 1852–1875 s.v. saṃjñita, “genannt, heissend”, suggests that such a Prakrit form is feasible. The word saṃjñita occurs in the Jain Sanskrit text the Upamitibhavaprapañcakathā of Siddharṣi (pīṭhabandha v. 266 Motā vol. 1).

ĀvNiry v. 764 occurs as Viśeṣāvaśyakabhāṣya v. 2757 where Jinabhadra’s reading is mātūya samaṇṇitaṃ. In the Ladnum edition of 2014 the Hindi translation of Sādhvī Muditayaśā interprets mātūya as referring to the mātṛkā, that is to say the Jain ontological triad of arising (utpāda), disappearance (vyaya) and stability (dhrauvya), understanding of which informed the young Vaira’s restraint towards the six forms of life.

Cf. Balbir 1993a: 145. ĀvCū p. 392. ll. 7–12 describes how Vaira was with his teacher at Ujjain when there is a downpour of rain. When it was over (teṇa aṃteṇa; H explains vāsaṃte by varṣati sati parjanya iti gamyate, “while it was raining”) the Jaṃbhaga (“yawning”) gods (see ĀvNiry v. 766) who have come to see Vaira decide to test him. Vaira does not take the alms they offer because this would breach monastic rules and he is accordingly rewarded with magic powers. For nimaṃtio whose sense is very near “tempted”, cf. ĀvNiry v. 768a. For the possibility of a Jaṃbhaga god earlier in the narrative see D12 and note 128. Yawning as a physical action has violent or disruptive implications in Hindu mythology; see Couture 2017: 167–184. ĀvNiry vv. 765–756 would appear to regard the Gujjhaa (Sanskrit Guhyaka; also called Vināyaka) gods with the Jambhaya gods as interchangeable for the purposes of its biography of Vaira, no doubt because of their shared antinomian and demonic attributes. However, a noteworthy feature of the Guhyaka gods in Hindu ritual is that they should be propitiated with food offerings by kings setting out on military expeditions; see Geslani 2018: 136–145. Such expeditions typically commence at the end of the rainy season (Sanskrit vāsānte). ĀvNiry v. 765 seems to be reversing the Guhyaka gods’ role in describing them making a food offering to a Jain monk when the rain has stopped (Prakrit vāsaṃte).

Cf. Balbir 1993a: 145. The first line of this verse recapitulates v. 765a; neither of these verses is identified by catchwords in the ĀvCū. H: āṇakkhiūṇa ti parīkṣya. The form, explained as < ālakṣya by Critical Prakrit Dictionary (citing this verse and Niśītha Cūrṇi 1.8.19) must then involve l / n alternation. However, Bollée 1994: 139 s.v. āṇakkhei queries a derivation from ālakṣ.

For the superhuman attainment of akkhīṇamahāṇasiya see section J. Neither this nor Vaira’s teacher Sīhagutta are mentioned by the ĀvCū prior to the section dealing with ĀvNiry v. 767. They are also not referred to by H.

ĀvCū p. 392 ll. 11–p. 393 l. 1 describes how Vaira by means of the padānusāribuddhilabdhi stabilised the text of the aṅgas and understood everything in the pūrva scriptures. For this superhuman attainment whereby hearing a single word generates knowledge of other words, see Gough 2021: 232 n. 30 and Wiley 2012: 163 and cf. Kapadia 2000: 74.

ĀvCū p. 394 ll. 11–12 has a catchword for this verse but says nothing of its content. The phrase devehiṃ katā mahimā occurs at ĀvCū p. 396 l. 11 where the context is the story alluded to in ĀvNiry v. 772. Dasapura referred to in the previous verse is in Malwa. Leumann 2010: 76 saw Dasapura as connecting a variety of early Jain figures including Vairasāmī’s pupil AjjaRakkhiya. For the rank of vācaka, see Gough 2021: 75.

See ĀvCū pp. 395 l. 1–396 l. 1 preceded by pratīkas for ĀvNiry vv. 770 and 771. Kusumapura is an alternative name of Pāṭaliputra.

According to ĀvCū p. 392 ll. 11–12 the Jaṃbhaya gods gave Vaira a flying spell (ṇabhagāmiṇī vijjā) after he rejected their efforts to tempt him with rich food. Mahāparinnā is the name of the lost seventh chapter of the Ācārāṅga Sūtra; see Kapadia 2000: 72. For Vairasāmī as the last to know the ten surviving Pūrva scriptures see Kapadia 2000: 68.

Verse cited by Āv Cū p. 394 l. 14 which gives only the pratīka for this verse. H: ‘mānuṣanagaṃ mānuṣottaraparvatam tiṣṭhed iti vākyaśeṣaḥ’.

The ĀvCū does not give a pratīka from this verse nor, as with H, any version of its content.

H: sesa tti puṣpasamudāyalakṣaṇā.

See ĀvCū pp. 396 ll. 5–397 l. 1 for Vairasāmī using his supernormal power to obtain flowers from the temple of a vyantara deity to confound a Buddhist (taccaniya) king who had been preventing the Jain community in the city of Puriya from performing worship. For taccanniya / taccaṇṇiya, “Buddhist”, add ĀvCū p. 396 ll. 6, 7 and 13 to the references adduced by Bollée 1994: 227 s.v. tac-caṇ[ṇ]i(ṇ) (sic) and 1998 vol. 3 p. 112 s.v. tac-caṇiya. ĀvCū seems to identify at p. 96 l. 9 the name of the vyantara deity as Hutāsaṇagiha but at l. 12 refers to Vaira going to Aggihara, “Agni’s temple”. Cf. H: ’Hutāśanagṛhāt’ vyantaradevakula-samanvitodyānāt. H gives the narrative of Vairasāmī’s aerial journey in his commentary on v. 771.

That is, caraṇa, dharma, saṃkhyā and dravya. See section C.

ĀvCū does not give a pratīka from this verse.

ĀvCū pp. 410 l. 14–411 l. 1 cursorily describes AjjaRakkhia’s division of the aṇuoga into four parts as a less demanding aid for intellectually weak pupils. For the decline in scriptural transmission setting in with the passing of Vaira, see Kapadia 2000: 68.

See note 44.

ViĀvBh v. 2756 is a versification of ĀvCū p. 381 ll. 7–11. Alsdorf 1998: 820 claims that the Viśeṣāvaśyakabhāṣya as a whole is a mere versification of the prose tradition represented by the Āvaśyaka Cūrṇi. This view is rejected by Balbir 1993a: 71. The Viśeṣāvaśyakabhāṣya was written between 593 CE and 609 CE; see Mahendra Kumar’s intro to Anantavīrya, Siddhiviniścayaṭīkā pp. 35–36, quoted by Franco 2018: 128 n. 33 (referring to the dating 609); Malvania (ViĀvBh Pt. 1 intro p. 3) regards 609 as the date of the manuscript’s completion.

See ViĀvBh v. 2284 (Caturavijaya vol. 5 p. 929): tāṃ cāryavairotpattim ananyasādhāraṇatadguṇarañjitamānaso granthakāraḥ stutidvāreṇāha “Tuṃbavaṇa”ityādi etaccaritagāthāś ca sugamāḥ, mūlāvaśyakaṭīkātaś ca sabhāvārthāḥ samavaseyās tāvat … See also Malvania ed. Pt. 2 p. 533 note 10.

See Balbir 1993a: 45 and 53.

See Kusumaprajñā’s introduction to ĀvNiryL: 41 for the verses under discussion being added as the 24th of 29 examples of interpolations within the ĀvNiry verses. For Haribhadra’s identification of interpolated verses in the ĀvNiry see Balbir 1993a: 45 n. 39. Some 257 bhāṣya verses from the Viśeṣāvaśyakabhāṣya of Jinabhadra have been inserted into the ĀvNiry as mūlabhāṣya. These bhāṣya verses, however, have been omitted from Kusumaprajñā’s text edition and collected in a separate section; see the introduction to ĀvNiryL vol. 2: 181–188; vol. 1: 37–42.

Kusumaprajñā’s edition consists of 1093 verses as opposed to the 1623 verses of the vulgate (see Balbir 1993a: 46 and 75); Āryarakṣitavijaya’s edition of the vulgate contains 1625 verses (1099 Malayagiri?). Because the verses identified as interpolations by Kusumaprajñā are assigned superscript enumeration in the new edition, use of a concordance is required to identify verses in the vulgate and other recensions. Unfortunately Kusumaprajñā only provides the necessary concordance for the first 680 verses; see vol. 1: 269–307.

See Kusumaprajñā’s edition of ĀvNiryL: 113 n. 18. Leumann (1934: 31b; 2010: 85) noted that the Viśeṣāvaśyakabhāṣya’s language is much more correct and its style more intelligible than that of the old Nijjuttis and their Bhāṣya insertions.

H p. 1107 ll. 2–3: Puṃḍarīgiṇī nagarī Puṃḍarīo rāyā Kaṃḍarīo juvarāyā jahā Nātesu; cf. Mette 1987: 142 n. 4 and also Bruhn, introduction to Cauppannamahāpurisacariya p. 15; see also Balbir 1993a: 145. H only has in common with ĀvCū the introduction and conclusion of the story, the only portions pertinent to its theme absent from the canonical model (Nāyā 19).

Mette 1987: 141 n. 3 describes the wording of the ĀvCū as being “fast identisch” referring, without giving specific examples, to the abbreviation of the stereotyped passages of the canonical version.

Nāyā p. 348 l. 14–16.

ĀvCū p. 384 ll. 5–6.

This perhaps is an abbreviation of yuvarāyā.

For ṇavaraṃ see note 53 (jaṃ navaraṃ) and Tieken 1983: 211–212; for earlier discussion see Bollée 1994: 255 s.v. navaraṃ and Schubring 1978: 70 s.v. jaṃ na-varaṃ. The expression here seems to signal abbreviation.

See Nāyā pp. 527–557 for a list of jāva texts.

For Meha’s renunciation see Gough 2021: 240 n. 20.

For the story of Udāyaṇa see ĀvCū vol. 2 pp. 36–37; and also Wu 2017.

Bhagavatī Sūtra 9.33 for Jamāli (Amaramuni vol. 3, text pp. 462–463; trans pp. 464–465), Deleu 1970: 164 and Dundas 2006: 35 and cf. Roth 1983: 133 n. 82. See ĀvCū p, 386 l. 4 for Kaṃḍarīa’s renunciation. Note that the ĀvCū version of the story does not describe Puṃḍarīa handing over his brother to the Jain monks as sīsabhikkha as does Nāyā p. 350 l. 1.

See Roth 1983: 133 n. 82, including Nāyā reference.

See D9e–f. Kaṃḍarīa went to hell because of falling ill due to a surfeit of rich food, whereas Puṃḍarīa who fell ill in the same way because of the poor quality of food went to heaven.

Section D9b; ĀvCū pp. 384 l. 13–386 l. 3 = Nāyā p. 349 ll. 15–16.

ĀvCū p. 385 ll. 2–12 = Nāyā pp. 47 l. 11–49 l. 8.

ĀvCū p. 385 l. 5–l. 7 = Nāyā p. 47 ll. 17–19: ahī vā egaṃtadiṭṭhīe khuro iva egaṃtadhārāe lohamayā va javā cavveyavvā vāluyākavale iva nirassāe gaṃgā vā mahāṇadī paḍissotaṃ gamaṇatāe mahāsamudde iva bhuyāhiṃ duttare tikkhaṃ kamiyavvaṃ garuyaṃ laṃbeyavvaṃ asidhāraṃ vataṃ caritavvaṃ. See Mette 2010: 66.

ĀvCū p. 385 ll. 7–10 (separating out the particle i / ti where necessary) jātā! se ahākammie i vā uddesie vā missajāte i vā uddarae [Sthāna, Aup ajjhoyarae] pūtite kīe pāmicce acchejje aṇisaṭṭhe abhihaḍe ti vā ṭhatie i [Aup ṭhaviyae; This and following not in Sthāna; Leumann Aupapātika Sūtra ed. p. 74 fn. 6: these are introduced from Nāyā 1. 144] vā ratitae ti [read ratitae i? Aup raiyae] vā kaṃtārabhatte i vā dubbhikkhabhatte i vā gilāṇabhatte i vā vaddaliyābhatte i vā pāhuṇigabhatte ivā [sic] sejjātarapiṃḍe ti vā rāyapiṃḍe ti vā mūlabhoyaṇe ti vā kaṃdabho [abbreviated] phalabho [abbreviated] bīyabho [abbreviated] hariyabhoyaṇeti vā [Sthāna paḍisiddhe] bhottae vā pātae.

ĀvCū p. 385 ll. 10–12 = Nāyā p. 48 ll. 4–7 tumaṃ ca ṇaṃ jātā! suhasamucite, ṇo ceva ṇaṃ duhasamucite, ṇalaṃ sītaṃ nālam unhaṃ ṇālaṃ khuhā ṇālaṃ pivāsā ṇālaṃ corā ṇālaṃ vālā ṇālaṃ daṃsā ālaṃ masagā ṇalaṃ vātiyapettiyaseṃbhiyasannivāte vivihe rogātaṃke uccāvae vā gāmakaṃṭage vā bāvīsaṃ parīsahovasagge udinne samaṃ ahiyāsettae tti.

The Prakrit expression is the equivalent of Sanskrit jāta; for the prolated vowel in the vocative see von Hinüber 2001: 229–230. I can find no evidence for this being a form of address used between siblings.

See note 366.

Nāyā p. 47 ll. 14–16: esa ṇaṃ niggaṃthe pāvayaṇe saccae anuttarae kevaliye paḍipuṇṇe neyāuye saṃsuddhae sallakattaṇe siddhimagge muttimagge nijjāṇamagge nivvāṇamagge vsavvadukkhapahīṇamagge. For the full text see JĀS ed. p. 342 Āvassayasutta 4 (Paḍikkamaṇajjhayaṇam) para 28: iṇam eva niggaṃthaṃ pāvayaṇaṃ saccaṃ anuttaraṃ kevaliyaṃ paḍipuṇṇaṃ neyāuyaṃ saṃsuddhaṃ sallakattaṇaṃ siddhimaggaṃ muttimaggaṃ nijjāṇamaggaṃ nivvāṇamaggaṃ vitaham avisaṃdhiṃ savvadukkhapahīṇamaggaṃ, etthaṃ ṭhiyā jīvā sijjhaṃti bujjhaṃti muccaṃti parinivvāyaṃti savvadukkhāṇam aṃtaṃ kareṃti.

ĀvCū p. 385 ll. 4–5: niggaṃthe pāvayaṇe sacce aṇuttare kevalie evaṃ jahā Paḍikkamaṇe jāva savvadukkhāṇaṃ aṃtaṃ karenti.

ṇo ya khalu kappati … samaṇāṇaṃ niggaṃthānaṃ pāṇātivāe vā jāva vā micchādaṃsaṇasalle. For the eighteen evils, see Bhagavatī Sūtra 1.9 and cf. Deleu 1970: 84.