‘Examining Religion’ through Generations of Jain Audiences: The Circulation of the Dharmaparīkṣā

Abstract

Indian literary traditions, both religious and non-religious, have dealt with literature in a fluid way, repeating and reusing narrative motifs, stories and characters over and over again. In recognition of this, the current paper will focus on one particular textual tradition within Jainism of works titled Dharmaparīkṣā and will trace its circulation. This didactic narrative, designed to convince a Jain audience of the correctness of Jainism over other traditions, was first composed in the tenth century in Apabhraṃśa and is best known in its eleventh-century Sanskrit version by the Digambara author Amitagati. Tracing it from a tenth-century context into modernity, across both classical and vernacular languages, will demonstrate the popularity of this narrative genre within Jain circles. The paper will focus on the materiality of manuscripts, looking at language and form, place of preservation, affiliation of the authors and/or scribe, and patronage. Next to highlighting a previously underestimated category of texts, such a historical overview of a particular literary circulation will prove illuminating on broader levels: it will show networks of transmission within the Jain community, illustrate different types of mediation of one literary tradition, and overall, enrich our knowledge of Jain literary culture.

The Jain Dharmaparīkṣā narrative, which stands out because of its explicit satirical character towards non-Jain traditions, has been popular from at least the tenth century until the nineteenth century. With a focus on the materiality of literary production, this paper seeks to establish the historical popularity of the Dharmaparīkṣā, as well as to strengthen the already-existing research on material literary culture of the Jains. In this regard, I argue that an examination of distribution patterns enables us to judge the popularity of a text. Further, with its method which looks not only at distribution patterns but also (preliminary) at other material indications of the text’s sociohistorical context (such as sect, caste, etc.), the paper aims to provide an example of how to assess in detail the practical use, relevance, and meaning of a text or textual tradition within South Asian literary history.

Within the field of Jain Studies, it is common knowledge that Jains have played an important role in the production and circulation of literary translations and reproductions (see e.g., Johnson 1993; Cort 1995; Wujastyk 2014). The huge amount of manuscripts in hundreds of libraries, for example, testify to a flourishing religious literary economy that engaged many individuals of different interests and stimulated, and was also stimulated by, a thriving intellectual community. Although within Jain Studies the enormous potential of what we can learn about Jainism and wider literary circulatory practices in South Asia is recognized, much of this potential is still to be exploited.

In fact, scholars of South Asia have recently renewed their attention to these issues, posing new research questions relating to the actors, practices, and spaces of literary production and circulation, the circuits of literary circulation, or the literary modes and languages of production and reproduction in India (see e.g., Colas and Gerschheimer 2009; Orsini and Sheikh 2014; de Bruijn and Busch 2014; Pauwels 2015; Orsini and Schofield 2015). Questions pertaining to the role of the Jains in that literary circulation, including their specificities and relation to wider Indian literary culture, remain all the more undisclosed.1

This paper wants to add to this path of research within a Jain literary context by viewing literary circulation from the perspective of one single textual tradition, by which I refer to different translations and retellings of one story produced over several centuries. It will attempt at depicting the spread of one frame story that goes by the title of Dharmaparīkṣā and will focus on the material aspects of its circulation.

In order to do this, I will first frame the main analysis by introducing the context of Jain manuscript culture, and identifying what is meant by the Dharmaparīkṣā textual tradition. Next, I will detail the multiple versions of Dharmaparīkṣā that exist in multiple languages, as such proving the Dharmaparīkṣā textual tradition to be a perfect illustration of how, in Indian literary history, circulation was ubiquitous and not hampered by linguistic boundaries, as well as a confirmation of the claim by de Bruijn and Busch (2014) that even within a religious community which has sometimes been identified with a particular language (e.g., Prakrit in Jainism), texts and genres were disseminated across sociolinguistic communities (p. 4). Moving on to the actual materiality of the Dharmaparīkṣā’s circulation, the paper will examine the number of manuscripts and map their locations in order to show how the Dharmaparīkṣā circulated across regional boundaries, suggesting a widespread fondness for this narrative. Thirdly, the paper will focus on the material aspects of some exemplary manuscripts. This will provide a first indication of the actors who used the Dharmaparīkṣā texts (namely both lay people and monks). Additionally, an examination of the colophons of the exemplary manuscripts discloses the use of the text, the networks between religious actors and the places that are connected through the Dharmaparīkṣā. The colophons further display how the Dharmaparīkṣā circulated across sectarian boundaries, as well as across time, as its manuscripts kept being produced until at least the end of the nineteenth century.

Wrapping up this detailed analysis, the conclusions of this paper will convince that the extent of a piece of literature cannot be fully assessed without probing its materiality.

1. Introducing Jain Manuscript Culture

As Pollock (2006) has stressed, the invention, diffusion, and conquest of manuscript culture, by which literary culture materialized, had a ‘historic’ impact on further literary developments in India (p. 77). An important impetus came from the medieval period onwards, when the Jains, as well as the Buddhists, started to establish libraries integrated in temple complexes in order to preserve their highly valued written tradition (Johnson 1993, p. 189). These Jain temple libraries, in contrast to Buddhist libraries that disappeared as Buddhism in India declined, remain active until today, making sure that the Jain manuscript collections now are considered among the richest collections in India (Wujastyk 2014, p. 10).

The manuscript libraries, called jñāna bhaṇḍāras, which Cort (1995) pointedly translates as ‘knowledge warehouses’ in his study of the manuscript libraries in Pāṭaṇ (Gujarat),2 were organizations that in a way mediated the relations between Jain laity and monks. While the libraries mostly served the interests of the mendicants, as it preserved the texts for the monks to use, it was the laity who was responsible for establishing and managing the libraries where manuscripts could be kept. As such, the names of Jain kings and rich merchants are known for the libraries they have built (e.g., king Kumārapāla in Pāṭaṇ; see Cort 1991, p. 78). The management of a bhaṇḍāra was in the hands of prominent lay members of the Jain congregation, or of a specialized mendicant who permanently resided in the monastery (a yati, for Śvetāmbara communities, or a bhaṭṭāraka in Digambara Jainism).3

Similarly, whereas Jain manuscripts would originally have been written down by mendicants who would compose works or copy texts during the monsoon season (Kāslivāl 1967, p. 5), extant manuscripts, mostly dating at earliest from the tenth and eleventh century, show how actually the lay community had the greatest hand in manuscript production. The laity was expected to arrange the copying of the manuscripts for monks to use (Cort 1995, p. 78). Many manuscript colophons speak of a prominent lay person who patronized the copy and of a lay scribe, who sometimes copied independently or was hired by a patron. As such, Detige (2018) notes that in the Digambara tradition many manuscripts were copied by so-called paṇḍitas¸ intellectual lay pupils of a bhaṭṭāraka who were often trained as ritual specialists. This use of the term is not to be confused with the Śvetāmbara title paṇḍita, synonymous to paṅnyās, where it refers to a rank of mendicants (Cort 1991, p. 664), or with the contemporary use of the term for well-educated lay intellectuals (Wiley 2009, p. 164; Flügel 2006, p. 341). In recent times, the focus in the organization of the Jain bhaṇḍāras has shifted towards the preservation of manuscripts. Increasingly more temple libraries have undertaken the cataloguing of their collection and sometimes have established a research center with the library. This brought with it the establishment of libraries such as Kobā Tīrth near Ahmedabad that comprises collections from several bhaṇḍāras in one temple-based library.

The lively history of the living Jain manuscript tradition shows why research concerning the materiality of a text, by which I do not only mean paper and ink but also the places, people, and relations associated with that material text, is important. It is within this context that I will examine the manuscript circulation of the Dharmaparīkṣā tradition, which is delineated in the following section.

2. Identifying the Dharmaparīkṣā

The Dharmaparīkṣā, which translates as ‘Examination of Religion,’4 is a narrative text that tries to examine and argue why the Jain tradition is ‘true’ (samyañc) and why other traditions, more precisely the dominant Brahmanical tradition, are not.5 More specifically, the text makes its argument within a frame structure using stories that refer to and satirically criticize Hindu Purāṇic and epic episodes. As such, the text should be understood within the tradition of Jain Purāṇas and Jain versions of the Mahābhārata and Rāmāyaṇa.6 Other than this, the Dharmaparīkṣā is often compared to the Dhūrtākhyāna (‘A Tale of Rogues’) because the works have a similar frame structure, common narrative motifs, and because both texts are satirical towards religion.7 Being a narrative text with a satirical undertone to criticize other religious traditions, the Dharmaparīkṣā was most likely meant to be heard or read by a Jain lay audience, with the purpose of directing them back on the correct Jain path and affirm the Jain path as the one true tradition.

Of the Dharmaparīkṣā, there exist several versions in several languages, written from at least the tenth century onwards by Digambara Jain authors. In a later period, some versions by Śvetāmbaras were also composed.

The main narrative of the Dharmaparīkṣā tells the story of two Vidyādharas, humans with extraordinary powers (vidyās) such as the ability to fly, in search of the truth.8 One of them, Manovega, is a devoted Jain. He is concerned about his friend, the other Vidyādhara called Pavanavega, who has strayed from the right religious path and who is especially drawn towards the Brahmanical religion. In search of help to get his friend back on ‘the right track,’ Manovega goes to Ujjayinī where he meets a Jain monk Jinamati. Hearing Manovega’s problem, Jinamati advises him to take his friend to Pāṭalīputra, a city dominated by Brahmins, portrayed as experts of the Hindu scriptures. There, Manovega engages in discussions with the Brahmins, each initiated by the narration of an incredible story he has invented about his life. From this point onwards, the narrative frame takes on a repetitive structure in which, for every few substories, the two Vidyādharas take on a different disguise before entering the city of Pāṭalīputra. In this way, every time they enter Pāṭalīputra they play a different character to instigate the curiosity of the Brahmins living there. Noticing the two peculiar newcomers, the Brahmins approach them and ask them who they are, upon which Manovega answers with an incredible story from his life. When the Brahmins do not believe him, Manovega justifies his story by referring to parallel episodes from the Hindu epics and Purāṇas. In this way, he proves the inconsistency of Purāṇic Hinduism. After every such discussion the Vidyādharas go outside of the city. There, Manovega explains to Pavanavega didactic passages from the Jain doctrine. In the end, Pavanavega is converted and accepts the vow of a Jain layman.

From this brief overview of the content of the Dharmaparīkṣā, it should be clear that this relatively understudied narrative is interesting to examine from the angle of literary circulation, since it tells us something about the way Jains saw their own place in society. More precisely, it informs us of a specific attitude of the Jains, throughout time and space, towards other traditions and their religious texts, namely an attitude of counteractive appropriation by means of satire. This attitude is not to be understood as remaining the same, but rather as repetitively revaluated because of the recurring need to refocus and reposition Jainism within historically changing socioreligious contexts of ideological battle.9 The next section will provide an overview of these textual revaluations of the Dharmaparīkṣā.

3. Many Dharmaparīkṣās

As I have mentioned above, several texts have been written that tell this same story. With three exceptions, all of them are called Dharmaparīkṣā. The names of the exceptions are Manovegakathā, Manovegapavanavegakathānak (attested respectively in the Jaina Granthāvalī and the Dela Upāśraya Bhaṇḍār: (Velankar 1944, p. 301)) and Manovegapavanavegacaupāī (kept in Jaisalmer: Jambūvijaya et al. 2000, p. 93). Most versions have never been studied, but we know of the existence of multiple works titled Dharmaparīkṣā because their titles can be retrieved in many manuscript catalogues. By researching these catalogues and secondary sources, I could compile a list of 28 authors who have written a Dharmaparīkṣā. These are: Amitagati, Daśaratha Nigantva, Devasena, Devavijaya, Hariṣeṇa, Jinadāsa, Jinamaṇḍana, Lakṣmaṇaprasāda Tivari, Mānavijaya, Manohara Lāla, Manohara Dāsa, Manovega, Nayavijaya, Padmasāgara, Pannalāla Caudhari, Pārśvakīrti, Rāmacandra, Sahasoma Ji, Saubhāgyasāgara, Sumatikīrti, Vṛttavilāsa, Yaśovijaya, Devendrakīrti, Nayasena, Śrutakīrti, Vādisingh, and Viśālakīrti.10

However, Indian literary works sometimes share the same title while not sharing the same content.11 Indeed, after scanning the texts of which I have been able to collect a manuscript, it appears that some of these authors do not tell the story of Manovega and Pavanavega. The Dharmaparīkṣā by Yaśovijaya, for example, is a philosophical treatise and the texts by Jinamandana and Mānavijaya/Devavijaya12 seem to tell a different narrative.

The following table (

Table 1. Authors of a Dharmaparīkṣā.

Author	Time of Composition	Language	Affiliation	Place
Hariṣena	1044 vs. (988 CE)13	Apabhraṃśa	Digambara	Citrakuṭa/Acalapura14
Amitagati	1070 vs. (1014 CE)15	Sanskrit	Digambara	Mālava16
Vṛttavilāsa	ca. 1360 CE17	Kannada	Digambara	Karnāṭaka18
Śrutakīrti	ca. 1552 vs. (1495 CE)	Apabhraṃśa	Digambara	Jerahaṭ19
Saubhāgyasāgara	1571 vs. (1515 CE)20	Sanskrit	Śvetāmbara
Sumatikīrti	1625 vs. (1568/1569 CE)21	Braj Bhāṣā	Digambara	Haṃsoṭ22
Padmasāgara	1645 vs. (1588/1589 CE)23	Sanskrit	Śvetāmbara	Velākūlapura
(Pārśvakīrti)24		(Sanskrit)
Rāmacandra	17th century25	Sanskrit	Digambara
Manohardās	1705 vs. (1649 CE)26	Braj Bhāṣā	Digambara	Dhāmpur27
Daśaratha Nigotiā	1718 vs. (1661 CE)	Rājasthāni28
Nemavijaya	1821 vs. (1764/1765 CE)	Gujarati	Śvetāmbara29

) shows the authors, with date and language, of Dharmaparīkṣās that are confirmed to contain the story of Manovega and Pavanavega, and are thus a retelling or translation of an older text.

This chronological table testifies to the popularity of the text throughout several centuries, as it was told or written and retold or rewritten from the tenth century until at least the seventeenth century. The oldest version was written in Apabhramśa by Hariṣena, who himself claims that he has based his Dharmaparīkṣā on a composition in gāthās by Jayarāma.30 A manuscript of this text has not yet been found and Hariṣeṇa’s account is the only one mention of it.31 The most widespread version was written in Sanskrit by Amitagati, whose composition seems to have served as the base for later versions (Manohardās explicitly refers to Amitagati’s text as his source). By the early modern period (ca. 1500–1800), Dharmaparīkṣā texts were being composed in vernacular literary languages, as is indicated by the texts of Sumatīkirti and Manohardās in Braj, Nemavijaya in Gujarati, and Daśaratha Nigotiā in Rājasthāni. This shows, on the one hand, the rise in literary importance of these languages among the Jains, and on the other hand, the importance of the Dharmaparīkṣā to be translated in vernacular languages. In the same period, we see that Sanskrit continues to be used as a literary language (in the versions of Saubhāgyasāgara, Padmasāgara, and Rāmacandra).

Through its translations and retellings, the story of the Dharmaparīkṣā has been handed down over a certain period of time. For that reason, I speak of the Dharmaparīkṣā as a textual tradition. The tradition circulated not only through the words of several authors, but also through the production of multiple manuscripts. This material culture of manuscripts, that as handmade pieces all differ from each other, will now be the focus of the rest of this paper.

4. Many Dharmaparīkṣā Copies

A first indicator of the material circulation of a text or textual tradition would be the number of manuscripts that were produced of it. Today of course, the exact number of manuscripts that were ever produced is impossible to ascertain. One can only resort to the extant manuscripts, especially those that have been recorded in catalogues. Through the method of consulting all the catalogues I could retrieve,32 I have found 231 manuscripts titled Dharmaparīkṣā. Of those manuscripts, twenty-one manuscripts are of a different type of text, as they contain the texts composed by Yaśovijaya, Jinamaṇḍana, and Mānavijaya/Devavijaya. Another forty-three manuscripts are unclear regarding their contents. This leaves 170 manuscripts which belong to the Dharmaparīkṣā-tradition that is defined by the frame story about Manovega and Pavanavega.

The distribution of the manuscripts according to ascribed authors shows a relatively greater importance of Amitagati’s text. With a presence of seventy-nine manuscripts (i.e., forty-six percent of the one hundred seventy manuscripts), Amitagati’s composition is confirmed to be the most popular version in material terms. The second most occurring author is Manohardās, with forty-six manuscripts.

Another indicator to estimate the importance and popularity of a textual tradition is its geographical spread. Geographical information is found most broadly in the manuscript catalogues (in addition to more local geographical references in the manuscripts themselves). In order to visualize the spread of the Dharmaparīkṣā tradition, I have chosen to map the places where the manuscripts are stored today using three types of catalogues. The first type are catalogues of community-based manuscript libraries (the bhaṇḍāras) that, in addition to a list of manuscripts kept in the library, often contain extra details such as date of composition and state of the manuscript.33 The second type of catalogues list the collection of institute-based libraries (e.g., Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute: BORI). These catalogues contain similar details and are often more easily available through a wider spread publication. The last type are the “catalogues of catalogues” (e.g., Catalogus Catalogorum) that exist as general registers, reports (e.g., Peterson Reports) or databases (e.g., NAMAMI) of manuscripts referring to the places where manuscripts are kept.

Figure 1 visualizes the geographical spread of the extant manuscripts, pinning each location for which there is a catalogue entry of a Dharmaparīkṣā manuscript.34

The points on the map represent the places where Dharmaparīkṣā manuscripts are now housed and do not show where the manuscripts were produced or where they have been kept throughout the centuries. Moreover, as some catalogues or registers date from decades back, the points also do not guarantee that one would find a Dharmaparīkṣā manuscript at the pinpointed places today still. What the points on the map do represent are the places where, at a certain point in time, a manuscript of the Dharmaparīkṣā was kept. This indicates that, in that specific place, the manuscript was deemed valuable to be kept either for practical reasons (it was used), or for reasons of preservation (the text was considered ‘worthy’ to be preserved). The marks on the map are differentiated by color and form to indicate the type of library in which the manuscript has been attested. A purple dot indicates a smaller library traditionally attached to a Jain temple (jñāna bhaṇḍāra). An orange pentagon refers to the bigger Jain temple-libraries that have established themselves as quasi-research institutes and contain multiple manuscript collections, some of which were originally kept in bhaṇḍāras at other places.35 Green squares represent the manuscript institutes (e.g., BORI) that only house manuscripts collected from other collections (including private collections and traditional bhaṇḍāras) and were established solely for the purpose of research. The development of these institutes has nevertheless been crucial for manuscript preservation and progress in the study of literature.

The purple dots, representing the smaller libraries, are of most interest because they are most likely to contain manuscripts obtained through traditional networks and preserved for traditional reasons. The locations of the bigger Jain bhaṇḍāras (orange pentagons) are also elucidating with regard to geographical spread of the textual tradition, because the collections these organizations have gathered into one library originate from places with which the Jain organization has or had social connections.36

Most of the locations pinpointed on the map keep more than one manuscript of Dharmaparīkṣā and often by the same author. As such, the map does not represent the total number of manuscripts. The Jain Vidyā Saṃsthān in Jaipur, which includes the former famous collection of the Āmer Śāstra Bhaṇḍār, for example, holds, according to the catalogues, eight manuscripts of the Dharmaparīkṣā by Amitagati, two by Hariṣeṇa, and three by Manohardās. However, it must be noted that when I visited in January 2017, I was shown three manuscripts by Hariṣeṇa, three by Amitagati and none by Manohardās, indicating a discrepancy between the published catalogues and the present-day situation. This discrepancy can be explained by the fact that some manuscripts got lost in the archives, might have suffered from decay due to the fragile character of manuscripts, might have been on loan, or simply because catalogues are not necessarily correct. The Jain Vidyā Saṃsthān is an example of the bigger libraries marked in orange. Over the years, these bhaṇḍāras have become large ‘temple-based research institutes’ devoted to the preservation of manuscripts coming from their own original collection, and also manuscripts collected from smaller bhaṇḍāras. The best example of such a library is the Hemacandra Jñān Bhaṇḍār in Pāṭaṇ, as it gathered a number of temple-based manuscript collections and is managed by a trust directed by Jain lay people. Other collecting manuscript libraries are attached to research institutes (like BORI) and University libraries (marked with green squares). The size of the marks (dots, pentagons, and squares) on the map are graduated according to the number of Dharmaparīkṣā manuscripts each library holds (the bigger the mark, the more manuscripts kept in that library, with a maximum of fourteen in one place). Notice that Jaipur has a cluster of libraries where many Dharmaparīkṣā manuscripts are kept, the most important libraries being the Jain Baḍā Terahpanthī Maṇḍir (see Kāslivāl 1962, 1954) and the Āmer Śāstra Bhaṇḍār at the Jain Vidyā Saṃsthān (see Kāslivāl 1950).

Figure 1 clearly shows that the Dharmaparīkṣā textual tradition as a whole was widely spread across the subcontinent. In addition, Figure 2 and Figure 3 below visualize the material spread of the texts by Amitagati and Manohardās, which are the two dominant versions in numerical terms. Both versions seem to have been well circulated. Amitagati’s Dharmaparīkṣā, next to having a numerical dominance, also has a distributional dominance. Manuscripts of his composition are found in both North and South India in smaller bhaṇḍāras, and his version is also preserved in more eastern parts of India in the Jain Siddhānt Bhavan in Arrah, a research institute of Jain affiliation. Manohardās’ Dharmaparīkṣā has been well spread across northern India. The most southern mark on the map points to BORI in Pune which holds manuscripts originally collected from other places. The relatively strong presence of the text by Manohardās in North India is presumably related to the language of the text, which is Braj Bhāṣā. Premodern Hindi (of which Braj can be seen as a contributing language) was used as a literary medium from Gujarat to Bengal and from northern Hindustan to the Deccan.37 Manohardās’ text was thus part of this wide and flourishing literary culture due to its language, but presumably its aesthetical value also had an influence.

The three maps together illustrate a relatively strong presence of manuscripts of the Dharmaparīkṣā in Western India, which is known to have a prominent Jain community. Interestingly, there seems to be no necessary division between Śvetāmbara and Digambara repositories with regards to the Dharmaparīkṣā, as manuscripts of Digambara versions such as that by Amitagati are well present in Śvetāmbara libraries (e.g., Hemacandra Jñān Bhaṇḍār in Pāṭaṇ). The textual tradition also made its way to the South where, next to manuscripts of Vṛttavilāsa’s Kannada version, Amitagati’s text is also preserved. The Dharmaparīkṣā today is kept in both traditional Jain libraries as well as research institutes without affiliation (e.g., Government Oriental Manuscript Library in Madras).

The Dharmaparīkṣā texts seem to have been well circulated and therefore liked by the Jain community who decided to copy a manuscript or have it copied. Although the number of manuscripts I have found is not overwhelming, it is still a significant number. Moreover, this number is definitely not a final count, as many libraries have not been catalogued and as many manuscripts are still kept in private collections.

5. A Few Dharmaparīkṣā Manuscripts

After looking at the body of manuscripts of Dharmaparīkṣā from a broad perspective, the next section will examine some manuscripts in detail, highlighting several aspects that are informative of Jain manuscript culture and disclose in-depth knowledge about the material culture of the Dharmaparīkṣā. These aspects include the material form and visible properties of the manuscripts, as well as an analysis of the scribal colophons. I have consulted these manuscripts at the Jain Vidyā Saṃsthān in Jaipur, the jñāna bhaṇḍāra at Kobā Tīrth, the Lālbhāī Dalpatbhāī Institute of Indology in Ahmedabad, the Hemacandra Jñān Bhaṇḍār in Pāṭaṇ, and the BORI in Puṇe.38 One manuscript I have received through Tillo Detige from the Jain Svarn Mandir in Gwalior, and six manuscripts I was able to consult through the idjo.org website, which stores digitized manuscripts from the Jain Siddhānt Bhavan in Arrah. In total, I have consulted thirty-two manuscripts of Dharmaparīkṣā texts.39

5.1. Material Form and Looks

All of the manuscripts I have collected were written on paper. This is related to the fact that the manuscripts I could access come from northern India, where most manuscripts are on paper. By contrast, in his edition of the ‘southern’ Dharmaparīkṣā by Vṛttavilāsa (in Kannada), Rao attests that he used seven manuscripts in preparing the edition, six of which are palm leaf (Rao 1982, pp. 28–32). Some of the manuscripts I collected were in relatively bad shape, although most were still complete and readable. This suggests that the collections I consulted have been well preserved and taken care of by the community.

Between the manuscripts there is quite a variety in the attractiveness of the manuscript because of the style of writing, the decorations and ink colors, and the size of the manuscript.

The script of each of the manuscripts is Devanāgarī (although in different variants), which accords to the general fact that this is “the script used for the bulk of the north Indian manuscripts of the last thousand years” (Wujastyk 2014, p. 7).

A ‘typical’ Dharmaparīkṣā manuscript is represented in Figure 4. The manuscript is rectangular and written in black ink with the verse numbers marked in a reddish overlay. The writing style is pretty readable, and there is an open space in the middle of the folio, witness of a time at which the binding of a manuscript was done through a hole in the middle. This is how many Jain manuscripts and classical Indian manuscripts in general look, although this particular example has somewhat more text on one folio than most.

Overall, none of the collected Dharmaparīkṣā manuscripts seem to stand out in form (which would have been the case, for example, if they had been written on a medium other than paper (for North Indian manuscripts) or would have included illustrations).

One manuscript, containing the Dharmaparikkhā by Hariṣeṇa, seems to be more precious (see Figure 5). It is decorated with a citrapṛṣṭhikā, which is an illustrated opening (or closing) page (Balbir 2017, p. 62). The illustration is like most citrapṛṣṭhikās in red, a color viewed as auspicious (Balbir 2017, p. 62). The illustration is not the most complex, but it does add to the beauty of the manuscript. Its beauty is even more enhanced by the decorative red dots in the margins of the following folios and the decorations around the page numbers. These red ink decorations are not continued throughout the manuscript, which is a convention I have seen in several manuscripts. On the opening page of the same manuscript, we also find the name of ‘Muni Śrī Ratnanaṃdi.’ Possibly this name refers to the muni the manuscript was given to. The decorations might then be seen as a way of making the gift more reverential. However, as there is no scribal colophon (puṣpikā) to this manuscript, this interpretation is hypothetical.

Another interesting-looking manuscript of the Dharmaparīkṣā, this one by Manohardās from the Arrah Jain Siddhānt Bhavan (see Figure 6), has a completely different form. It is in ‘portrait’ format and has a less-polished handwriting, while still differentiating text and verse meter or number by using both black and red ink. Flicking through the different folios of the manuscript, it appears that the manuscript has not been written down by only one person. We can discern at least two different handwritings. Further, the manuscript is broken off at several points and only the first chapter of the text has been preserved. Overall, this manuscript looks somewhat messy and is not as well preserved as the other manuscripts I have collected.

This manuscript is a guṭakā manuscript, a sort of notebook into which people copied texts of various lengths and subjects for their personal study or recitation.43 Its very existence is the sure sign that there are other similar manuscripts of Dharmaparīkṣā texts. This type of materiality shows how the Dharmaparīkṣā text, in this case the text by Manohardās, played a direct role in the religious practice of Jain laity. It also gives a sense of the practical use of texts written by laymen (as Manohardās was) for lay communities. As it contains two different handwritings, it suggests the text changed hands between members of the community, which is not uncommon for guṭakā manuscripts. The different handwritings testify to the multiple interests in the material text and in the text by Manohardās, that became a space of living religious practice shaped by the community.

5.2. Manuscript Colophons

Jain manuscripts have the overall reputation of often providing informative colophons (Balbir 2017, p. 64).44 Some of the manuscripts I have consulted indeed include a scribal colophon, called a puṣpikā, but not all manuscripts have this and they are not equally informative. In its most elaborate form, the scribal colophon would give a date (year, month, day) of copying, a place, a ruler at that place, the copyist, and a patron and his family (in that order). Some colophons also refer to the lineage of bhaṭṭārakas and ācāryas (ascetic ranks within Digambara Jainism) of the gaccha or gaṇa of the person (often a muni) for whom the manuscript was meant, and sometimes even a price of the manuscript.

Faithful to this reputation, the colophons of the manuscripts I have collected (twenty of the thirty-two manuscripts include a puṣpikā or colophon) give information about the practices and social networks related to Dharmaparīksā material texts by including these aspects that will now be discussed point by point, with references to examples of puṣpikās.

5.2.1. Date of Copying

The detailed colophons will first enable us to assess the circulation of the different versions of the Dharmaparīkṣā in time. Manuscript colophons usually render dates in the following way, exemplified here by the colophon of manuscript 617/1875–76 of BORI that contains the Dhammaparikkhā by Hariṣeṇa: ‘In VS 1595 (=1539 CE)45 on Tuesday the fifth day of the dark fortnight of the Pauṣadha month, during the fifteenth lunar constellation […]’.46 In fact, the addition of the lunar constellation in this colophon is not uncommon in Indian manuscripts, but does not appear in any of the other consulted manuscripts. This manuscript is the oldest manuscript I have consulted.

In contrast, of the consulted manuscripts, the one copied the latest dates from VS 1909 (=1852 CE).47 It contains the text by Manohardās and is kept in Gwalior. Most dated manuscripts contain Amitagati’s text and these date from VS 1599, VS 1607, VS 1624, VS 1666, VS 1681, VS 1698, VS 1766, VS 1776, VS 1870.

It should be noted that the dates represented by the collected manuscripts furnish only one restricted perspective on the history of the transmission of Dharmaparīkṣā manuscripts because they come from specific libraries that have their own specific history, as they were established at a specific time, knew their heydays in specific periods, or might have experienced certain difficulties at other moments.

Including also the information retrieved from manuscript catalogues, then the oldest manuscript, containing Amitagati’s version, dates from VS 1537 (=1480/81 CE) and is kept in Ajmer (Śrī Di. Jain Paṃcāyatī Maṃdira, p. 140, n. 1672.142), while the latest manuscript dates from VS 1960, containing Manohardās’ text and kept in Gwalior (Singh 2012, p. 231, n. 353).48 Another relatively late manuscript of Amitagati’s Dharmaparīkṣā is dated VS 1939, housed in Jaipur (Kāslivāl 1962, p. 353, n. 3650). This indicates that Amitagati’s text continued to be copied and remained circulating until very recent times.

5.2.2. Places

Secondly, concerning the assessment of the spatial spread of our textual tradition, manuscript colophons can refer to two types of places. The place most mentioned is the place where the manuscript was copied. Sometimes a manuscript refers also (or only) to the place where the patron comes from. These geographical references have great potential as they would disclose a network of locations that is both religious and economic, linking temples, lay followers, and professional scribes. Unfortunately, as these places were often very small localities that nowadays do not exist anymore or have changed their names, it is often very hard to geographically locate them. and would require more historical topographical studies.

An example of such an ‘unknown’ place is found in manuscript 1076/1884–87 at BORI of the Dharmaparīkṣā by Amitagati: ‘In VS 1624 on Sunday the eleventh day of the Jeṣṭavadi in the place Vṛndāvati during the reign of Rāvasūryana […].’49 Klatt’s Jaina-Onomasticon (Klatt 2016), an enormous compilation of references to Jain authors, texts, and other names taken from textual, bibliographical, and epigraphic sources, has just an entry for Vṛndāvatī-nagara (p. 795), and the name is similar to the well-known Vṛṇdāvan, but further there seems to be no information on this locality that would be linked to the mentioned ruler (Rāvasūryana).

Another colophon, of n. 475 in the Jaina Vidyā Saṃsthān containing Amitagati’s Dharmaparīkṣā, attests to sahādarā-madhye.50 One could guess that this place-name refers to Śāhadarā, which was one of the suburbs of Shāhjahānabād (old Delhi) and was sacked in the disorder of the mid-eighteenth century (Blake 1991, p. 58). This might fit because the same manuscript also refers to the ruling of Mulakagīr, who would have been a ruler of Delhi around the time the manuscript was copied.51 As the manuscript is nowadays kept in the collection of the Jain Vidyā Saṃsthān in Jaipur, it seems that this particular manuscript traveled (at least) from Delhi to Jaipur. It might have travelled with a muni who came from Delhi to Jaipur, or with an educated lay person who possibly had some trade business between the two cities. It is also possible that the manuscript evidences the migration of Jains from formerly Mughal regions (including Delhi) to Jaipur encouraged by Sawai Jai Singh II, who established Jaipur as a flourishing city that attracted Jain merchants as well as Jain scribal elites (see Roy 1978, pp. 55–58, 180–91). Nevertheless, there existed linkages through the religious community between the two cities that are materialized in the manuscript.

A last example of a reference to a place in a colophon comes from the puṣpikā of manuscript n. 211 in the Svarn Mandir in Gwalior: ‘It was written down in Campābāga.’52 The place Campābāga can be located with more certainty when combined with the information found in the catalogue describing the manuscript. The catalogue refers to the place of copying as Campābāga, Laśkara. This place is easy to locate because Laśkara is the neighbourhood in Gwalior where the manuscript actually is kept today in the Digambara Svarn Mandir. So, it seems that this particular manuscript has not travelled since its production.

Although it is hard to ascertain the place of copying for many manuscripts, the manuscripts of which the place of copying is known attest to a varied spatial spread in which manuscripts not rarely moved from one place to the other as Jains moved. At the same time, the fact that the manuscripts moved along with the Jains gives a sense of their function and value.

5.2.3. Scribes

A next step in this attempt to retrace the history of Dharmaparīkṣā manuscript circulation focuses on targeting its audience, by establishing the identity of the scribe, of the patron, and of the recipient of the selected manuscripts. Firstly, some of the collected manuscripts render the name of the scribe of the manuscript. These names are often included at the utter end of the colophon, or sometimes before the lineage of bhaṭṭārakas (and other ascetic ranks including ācāryas) and/or the family who ordered the manuscript. This is the case for example in the colophon of manuscript 1076/1884–87 at BORI (see above for the full colophon): […] pravarttate likhitaṃ jyoti śrī gaṇesa budivālā graṃthasaṃkhyā 1341|| śrīmūlasaṃghe balātkāragaṇe sarasvatīgacche srī kuṃdakuṃdācāryānvaye bhaṭṭāraka śrī padmanaṃdidevās tatpaṭṭe bhaḥśubhacaṃdradevās tatpaṭṭe […] Khaṃḍelavāla pāpaḍī gotre sāṃ mehā tasya bhāryā mārṇakade tayoḥ putra sā gaṅgā […]. ‘Jyoti Śrī Gaṇesa Budivālā undertook the writing in 1341 verses […].’

Other names of scribes I found in the colophons are paṇḍita Govardhana, Toḍahāla, Rāmacandra, pustaka-paṇḍita Rāmacandra, paṃ. (paṇḍita) Haritilaka Gaṇi, and paṇḍita Dayārāma. The names and adjoining titles of these copyists suggest that most of them are lay people. The title paṇḍita are here, except for Haritilaka, to be understood in the Digambara sense of the title, namely, as lay followers of bhaṭṭārakas (see above). Paṇḍita Dayārāma appears as copyist in several colophons in Kāslivāl’s Praśasti Saṃgraha (1950) and would have been the scribe of dozens and dozens more manuscripts throughout Rajasthan (Detige 2018, p. 289). Paṇḍita Haritilaka Gaṇi is the exception in this row as he holds two titles, paṇḍita referring to the rank that comes after muni (i.e., the initial rank of a mendicant), and gaṇi the rank that more or less coincides with paṇḍita. The fact that he holds these two titles at the same time was not uncommon (Cort 1991, p. 664).

In manuscript n. 475 in the Jain Vidyā Saṃsthān of Amitagati’s Dharmaparīkṣā in Jaipur reference, we find the colophon: samvat 1733 kārtika sudī 2 dine śukravāre śrī pātasāha mulakagīra rājye sahādarā-madhye sā. parasarāma tat putra banārasīdāsa tatputra nirmaladāsa likhāvita lekhaka śvetāmbara rāmacaṇdena likhyataṃ. This colophon is interesting because the scribe is here explicitly said to be Śvetāmbara. This explicit affiliatory reference, in my opinion, suggests some kind of contrast. Either it could point to the fact that Rāmacandra had a different affiliation than the patron (Nirmaladās), who might have been Digambara. Another possibility is that the scribe was aware of the divergence between his own affiliation and that of the Digambara author Amitagati and wanted to make this explicit. Interestingly, although professional scribes did not necessarily have affiliatory connections to a patron or a text and, moreover, there were literary crossovers between Digambara and Śvetāmbara Jains,53 this case illustrates that a difference in religious identity was still perceived as important enough to make it explicit.54

5.2.4. Patronage

Secondly, the colophons of the Dharmaparīkṣā manuscripts testify that the copying of some manuscripts was sponsored by lay patrons. In many cases, the name of the patron is given together with his whole family. This is a common way of rendering in Jain manuscripts. In the abovementioned manuscript 617/1875–76 of BORI, for example, we find after the date is given (see above): ‘[…] In the tradition of Maṅgalācārya Śrī Bhuvanakīrti, in the Ajamera Gotra in the Khandelavāla family mantrin55 Sūjū, his son Ṭehu who has a wife Chājī, their son Chītara who has a wife Rājā, has ordered this Dharmaparīkṣā […] to be copied.’56

This type of family genealogy found in manuscripts could serve as an interesting source for family histories of Jains when comparing multiple colophons. This specific colophon, on its own, tells us that the Dharmaparīkṣā was appreciated and most likely used within the Ajamera Gotra of the Digambara Mūlasaṅgha Balātkāragaṇa Nāgauraśākhā. Other manuscripts I have consulted give the names of Lālajī Singh, Duṃgarasī Gaṃgāvāla, Nirmaladāsa, Sādhvī Sulekhā, Shah Nālai, Pāpadivāla Khandelavāla, Śāha Gopāla Lausa Khandelavāla, and Osavāla as patrons of the manuscript.

It is interesting to notice that women could also patronize the copy of a text. Sādhvī Sulekhā was a lay woman who patronized the copying of the text by Amitagati (manuscript n. 476 in the Jain Vidyā Saṃsthān).57 It shows that women had considerable power within the religious realm of life.

5.2.5. Recipient of a Manuscripts

Thirdly, only a couple of the Dharmaparīkṣā manuscripts I have consulted mention the person receiving the manuscript. Two manuscripts attest that they were given to a monk, which is in accordance with the expected duty of the laity to support the monastic community by providing manuscripts (Cort 1995, p. 78). One manuscript of Hariṣeṇa’s Dhammaparikkhā was given to muni Devanandi: muni devanaṃdi yogya dātavyaṃ ‘it will be given to muni Devanandi’ (see above for the complete colophon of BORI 617/1875–76), another was meant for muni Guṇacandra (n. 472 in the Jain Vidyā Saṃsthān). One manuscript of Amitagati’s Dharmaparīkṣā (BORI 1076/1884–87) seems to have been given to a lay person named Rāyamallaḥ. This, however, remains uncertain because the name Rāyamalla is preceded by a first name or title that is illegible and that I have taken as prahva (see above).

The recipient of a manuscript does not always have to be a third person. Manuscript Kh-125 from the Jain Siddhānt Bhavan in Arrah containing Amitagati’s Dharmaparīkṣā, for example, reads: ‘In 1691 VS on the sixth day of the dark fortnight of the month Pauṣa, pustaka-pandit Śrī Rāmacandra has copied it for his own reading.’58 This illustrates how the Dharmaparīkṣā could both serve as an honorable gift for a monk and be used by a lay individual, possibly for his entertainment or to practice his religious commitment.

5.2.6. Other Information

Lastly, I would like to mention two more interesting aspects we can find in the puṣpikās. Several manuscripts give the lineage of bhaṭṭārakas and ācāryas to which the patrons or copyist of the manuscript (for example, in case one had copied the manuscript for his own purpose) are affiliated. These lineages not only reveal the evolution of the different bhaṭṭāraka seats, it also tells about the sects (gacchas) and traditions or branches (āmnāya or śākhā) in which this specific text circulated. In comparison to other texts, such approach might reveal whether certain genres or textual traditions were more popular in certain gacchas. As there is only a limited number of the consulted manuscripts of Dharmaparīkṣā that refer to a specific gaccha, such claims are difficult to make within this article.59 However, one manuscript of Rāmacandra’s text (a Digambara author) mentions that it was copied within the Āgama Gaccha (BORI 1270/1891–95), which is a Śvetāmbara branch. This, again, illustrates that Śvetāmbara audiences were interested in Digambara literature, in this case, in a Digambara abbreviated narrative (the text has only thirty-three folios, whereas manuscripts of Amitagati’s text mostly have over one hundred folios), hypothetically suggesting the usefulness of Rāmacandra’s text.60

A last interesting aspect we find in the materiality of the manuscript colophons is the appearance of a handwriting different from the rest of the manuscript for the second part of the puṣpikā or for the whole puṣpikā. This is the case in several of the abovementioned examples. To repeat just one, in manuscript BORI 1076/1884–87 (see Figure 7), one part of the colophon including the date, place, and scribe of the copy is written in one handwriting, while a second part including the monastic lineage, family of the patron, and the recipient is in another handwriting. The second handwriting is probably a later addition, added to the manuscript to put on paper the patronage of this manuscript by the Khandelavāla Pāpaḍivāla family, or added when the manuscript (that already existed before) was given to Rāyamallaḥ.

This type of evidence shows how the Dharmaparīkṣā texts (by Amitagati, but also by Hariṣeṇa and Manohardās) very literally changed hands.

6. Conclusions

The initial observation of multiple versions of Dharmaparīkṣā, as well as the considerable number of manuscripts located in geographically diffuse places on the subcontinent, has shown how the Dharmaparīkṣā circulated across linguistic and regional boundaries. This indicates the circulation and broader transmission of a specific taste of literature, namely a taste for narrative and satirical literature. As such, this article confirms the preference for narrative literature within the Jain community, as highlighted, for example, by Kragh (2013), but adds a definite feel for satire within this preference. Early modern Jain audiences indeed seem to have been fond of this text that is dedicated to laughing at Brahmins.

The focus on the material aspects and the scribal colophons of some exemplary manuscripts taught us that the Dharmaparīkṣā had several interested parties. Sometimes it was used by lay people for their own reading or study, sometimes it was gifted to a muni by lay patrons who outsourced the copying of a manuscript to professional scribes. Moreover, the circulation of the material text was not limited to one affiliation within the Jain community, one manuscript could circulate across sectarian boundaries.

My analysis of the material culture of the Dharmaparīkṣā reinforces previous studies on Jain manuscript culture (such as Cort 1995; Kragh 2013; Balbir 2017) from the perspective of one textual tradition. It shows that Jain manuscripts of the Dharmaparīkṣā served as ‘meeting places’ between literary interested actors of the religious community. These ‘meeting places’ should not be regarded as fixed. They were both mobile, as they travelled from one geographical place to the other, as well as mobilizing, as they incited people to travel enhancing their socioreligious networks. From this, it is manifest that the material literary circulation of a satirical narrative, which the Dharmaparīkṣā is, was unlimited by boundaries and supported by the broader Jain community.

These conclusions from a material point of view raise new questions with regards to the circulation of the Dharmaparīkṣā in its different versions, and also with regards to the circulation of similar narratives. In relation to the latter, it would be interesting to look at, for example, the materiality of the Dhūrtākhyāna tradition, in comparison to the Dharmaparīkṣā tradition, by investigating whether manuscripts of the Dhūrtākhyāna tradition were as widely spread, kept in the same places, or circulated within the same affiliatory groups. This would disclose further the popularity of repertoires, genres, and styles within the Jain community.

Research along the line of the different versions of Dharmaparīkṣā will lead to further insight into existing or non-existing sectarian divisions, historical contexts of religious conflict, and perceptions of language in India.

Finally, with its method that acknowledges the importance of material culture to the study of literature, this paper hopes to inspire further examinations of the material culture of specific literary texts or traditions, issuing an evaluation of their specific role with regards to popularity, religious authority, or economy.