A genre of parīkṣā?

Titles of texts often refer to a specific category or genre within which the text fits. As such, I have above referred already to purāṇa or caritra as the name of the specific genre that tells (parts of) the Jain Universal History. The tradition under discussion names itself parīkṣā. This is not a classically differentiated genre, but it is a name that is used by

59 These are Caturmukha (author of a lost Abdhimathana), Svayambhū (author of Paümacariu a.o.) and Puṣpadanta (author of Mahāpurāṇa a.o.).

60 This framing dialogue between Śreṇika and Gautama is not present in, for example, Hemacandra's Triśaṣṭiśalākāpuruṣacarita and several other Śvetāmbara caritas (see De Clercq 2005: 607)

61 There is discussion about the 'origin' of the epic stories (see Brockington 1998: 4-17), and some (e.g. Weber) have also noticed the relation of the Rāmāyaṇa to the early Buddhist jātakas (Brockington 1998: 50). However, I would argue that, at least at the time of the Dharmaparīkṣā's conception (ninth century?), the Jain versions of the Rāma story were considered as ‘alternative’ to what had crystalized as Hindu versions, attributed to Vyāsa and Vālmīki, since Jainism was a minority religion to Hinduism and since the Jain Purāṇa tradition itself treats the Hindu Purāṇas as the 'other'.

multiple texts. In this section I would like to tentatively analyse what a 'genre' of parīkṣā could be, and why the tradition under discussion would identify itself as such. In general, the word parīkṣā means 'examination' or 'test'. It is perhaps most associated with Indian philosophy where it refers to testing the veracity of an assumption, as a final step of establishing a treatise (śāstra).⁶² This goes back to Vatsyāyana's Nyāyabhāṣā (fourth century commentary on the Nyāyasūtra) where the author posits that an explanation of a theory (śāstra) should consist of three steps, namely uddeśa 'definition', lakṣaṇa 'characterisation', and parīkṣā 'ascertainment' of the appropriateness of the distinguishing characteristic by means of the pramāṇas (Manevskaia 2008: 105). Another interpretation of the term parīkṣā comes from the Nyāyaṭīkā (or Nyāyabindu) (by Dharmakīrti?) saying that it is as an 'examination' of the strengths (prābalya) and flaws (daurbalya) of the inferred theses (yukti) of different systems of thought (Varni vol. 3 2002:

38).⁶³ With such an understanding we may come closer to what our Dharmaparīkṣā endeavours, since it examines indeed different religious systems. However, our 'text' does not leave space for any balanced examination of Brahmanism, but only points out its mistakes. A third definition of parīkṣā comes from the Dhavalā and calls vicaya, vicāraṇā, mimāṃsā, and parīkṣā synonyms (Varni 2002: 541). This mention is particularly interesting for Amitagati's version of the Dharmaparīkṣā, since it seems to put focus on vicāra ('consideration'). (see Chapter 2). Nevertheless, all these definitions seem to imply a philosophical nature whereas the Dharmaparīkṣā under discussion does not primarily fit into this category.⁶⁴ The Jainendra Siddhānt Koś (Varni 2002) also includes a short list of related terms in its glossary of the term parīkṣā, in which the fourth topic is parīkṣā of deva ('god'), guru ('teacher'), and śāstra ('treatise' or 'authoritative knowledge') (Varni 2002:

38). This is indeed the kind of examination undertaken in our Dharmaparīkṣā. Moreover, our authoritative author Amitagati seems to be aware of this interpretation as he affirms that one should examine a deva by a deva, a śāstra by a sāstra and a yatin by a yatin ('ascetic') (DPA 13.101).

Moving beyond definitions of the word parīkṣā, it is efficient to take a glance at other works that have parīkṣā in their title. Such a glance confirms the fact that parīkṣā is predominantly associated with more 'philosophical' or 'scientific' literature. For example, the index of Potter's Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophy has forty-three entries

62 In fact, Amitagati frames his Dharmaparīkṣā as a śāstra (see Chapter 2) and calls it a śāstra in his praśasti (v. 20).

63 Varni does not mention the author of the Nyāyaṭīkā he refers to.

64Ulrich Timme Kragh in his study of the manuscript collection of the Amer Śāstra Bhaṇḍār categorises the Dharmaparīkṣā by Amitagati as a philosophical-religious work. Since its content does not fit with how he delineates this category (by means of the other works in it), I presume that Kragh has categorised Amitagati's text on the basis of its name. Note as well, that the dating of Amitagati's Dharmaparīkṣā in Kragh's article is wrong (1003 instead of 1014) (2013: 29).

with parīkṣā in the title.⁶⁵ As is intrinsic to the Indian philosophical system, many of these works are religio-philosophical in character, but they use the sort of discourse that is more explanatory and analytical than how we would assess the discourse in the Dharmaparīkṣā. To mention just one example of a 'philosophical' parīkṣā, I refer to Yaśovijaya's Dharmaparīkṣā. This seventeenth-century work bears the same title as the subject of this dissertation, but has a very different content (see Dundas 2007: 150-164).⁶⁶ As our work under discussion itself demonstrates, it would be wrong to state that the word parīkṣā was solely used for treatises that used a non-fictitious discourse or were of strictly philosophical nature. An example of another 'examination' that best relates to our Dharmaparīkṣā is the Samayaparīkṣe by Brahmaśiva. This is a Kannada text from the twelfth century that criticises Brahmin religion by means of satire (see Chapter 4).

Similarly, to the Dharmaparīkṣā, this text addresses issues or bad customs that have grown into Jain practice, such as devotion to folk gods, and does this in a rather blunt style and manner (see Zydenbos 1986).

I now move on to the question: Why the frame narrative under discussion would name itself a parīkṣā? Firstly, I would like to note that this title does not necessarily have to be problematised. Just like many other dharmakathās, the Dharmaparīkṣā involves an examination of what is correct behaviour and what is wrong behaviour and tries to make this clear to its audience. However, in view of the overt association of parīkṣā with texts of a philosophical nature, a further explanation that links the two seemingly separate types of parīkṣā, seems appropriate. The Dharmaparīkṣā commits itself to looking with a critical eye towards another tradition and to testing its validity. In this way, it is related to the first definition I have previously mentioned. Viewed from this perspective, our 'text' takes up the final step of the threefold logical process, and concludes that the validity of the Brahmanical tradition does not hold.⁶⁷ In my opinion, the self-designation as parīkṣā of our textual tradition is deliberate and meaningful, and points exactly to the form or genre under which it wanted to be understood. As such, the Dharmaparīkṣā aims at participating in the debate between multiple religions and wants to argue for the validity of Jainism and invalidity of Brahmanism. This it does by means of narrative.⁶⁸

65 I must acknowledge that it is difficult to assess for each of these works if we would generally understand them as 'philosophical', but from the information I gained on a selection of works it seems fair to make this claim.

66 It is a scholarly work not exclusively directed towards monastic intellectuals that was written to controvert Dharmasāgara's Sarvajñaśataka.

67 This idea seems to be especially present in Amitagati's version (see Chapter 2).

68 This conclusion relates to Nussbaum's claims of how ethical concerns and narrative should not be seen as strictly separate in the Greek tradition, an idea which I will return to in Chapter 2 (Nussbaum 1990: 3-53).