Manohardās' historical and literary context

The depiction by Manohardās of his own life suggests that our author had a multi-layered identity and role in society, defined by different sorts of interactions. He was a writer of Braj literature and a professional translator who travelled between different cities for this purpose. At the same time, he identified as a Jain who was deeply engaged with the Jain intellectual community and who thoroughly thought about his religion. The different layers of his personality are related to the historical context in which he acted. Mughal India knew a flourishing literary culture in the vernacular language (predominantly Brajbhāṣā) in which many different religious strands were involved. The Jain community itself participated and extensively encouraged a literary-intellectual culture (see Cort 2015; 2019; De Clercq 2014). In what follows, I will first contextualise Manohardās' identity as a Jain littérateur, before zooming out on Braj literary culture of the seventeenth century.

3.1.1.1 Jain literary circles of the seventeenth century

Our author reports on different cities in North India (Dhāmpur, Benares, Ayodhya, and Agra) connected by a network of wealthy Jain merchants interested in Jain literature. This account of his life is reminiscent of the autobiography of Banārsīdās (1587–ca. 1643), who is probably the best-known Jain author who wrote in Brajbhāṣā and lived in roughly the same time period. His autobiography, the Ardhakathānak ('Half Story'), is famous for the details it contains about northern India in the seventeenth century and about the life of a literary-interested Jain merchant, as Banarsī was himself.¹¹ In his Half Story we are told about the extensive travels he undertook as a merchant between Agra, Patna, Allahabad, and Jaunpur and about the struggles that came with these trade enterprises. If we read again the passage above of what Manohardās wrote about his own life, we can see some similarities between the lives of the two authors. Manohardās was equally involved in a community of merchants with their commercial concerns who travelled between cities

11 The Ardhakathānak has been translated into English prose by Sharma (1970), English verse by Lath (1981), and into English free verse by Chowdhuri (2009) with an introductory preface. It has been translated into French by Petit (2011), who has also published several studies on Banārsīdās (2008-2009; 2013; 2015). For further information on Banārsīdās see also Jain (1966), Vanina (1995), Snell (2005), and Cort (2015).

in the same region.¹² Further, the fact that both Manohardās and Banārsīdās made bhāṣās ('translations', cf. infra) of Sanskrit works, shows that they both received education into different languages and literatures.¹³ A look into the life of Banārsīdās, through his Ardhakathānak, can thus shed a light on the world in which our author lived and puts a clearer perspective on what exactly he describes about his life in the text.

In the praśasti by Manohardās we read about Agra, the city that played an important role in the life of Banārsīdās as well. It is suggested in the works of both authors to have been a city of political power where also literary knowledge was spread.¹⁴ Originally coming from Jaunpur, Banārsīdās spent several periods of his life in Agra studying and writing. Agra, at the time, was a city of opportunities where the political and economic powers resided. Many Jains travelled and migrated to the city so that it became a city of cultural prowess also for the Jains. Agra knew several Digambara temples controlled by ritual specialists or paṇḍitas who oversaw and organised temple activities and rituals, engaged in the production of Jain texts and delivered public sermons (Cort 2015: 69-70).

The writings of Banārsīdās give a clear image of how these public lectures were performed and of the discussion groups (śailī) that took place around the temples. In the Samayasāra Nāṭaka, his most famous work among Jains, he writes, '[...] they were five men, who met and sat together. They would discuss the supreme truth, and nothing else. Sometimes they discussed the Samayasāra, sometimes other texts. Sometimes they would continue to discuss wisdom even after they had stood up [to leave]' (taken from Cort 2015: 72-73). This quote suggests why Banārsīdās invested his time and literary skills in writing a bhāṣā of Sanskrit texts, namely, to foster intellectual discussions by providing a vernacular aid to read Jain 'wisdom'. Furthermore, the quote is valuable because it testifies to how Jain laymen in the seventeenth century took a leading role in developing their own religion, how they put an emphasis on knowledge, and how texts became a central medium to study this. These are the characteristics of the new religious movement, called adhyātma,

12 It is possible that Manohardās himself was a merchant-poet, because he says, 'prītama sunahu vicāra, paṃdita bhī jānai nahī, kāmīnī carita apāra, kahai manohara vāṇiyā' (Arrah ms. G-24, v. 1204). This can either mean 'Listen to this most precious thought. Even the pandits do not know the excessive behaviour of a lover, says Manohara to the merchants' or '[...], says Manohara the merchant'. My interpretation leans towards the first possible translation.

13 Cort notes that it was common practice 'for the sons of merchant families to be given basic education in letters and numbers, as these skills were essential for their trade'. Banārsīdās continued his education and studied science, poetics, and Jain religion (2015: 75-76). Petit highlights the importance of adhyātmika circles (śailī) for religious study and cites the Jain author and commentator Ṭoḍarmal who described that Banārsīdās 'aussi reçu son éducation religieuse dans une des sailī d’Agra' (2013: 247). This is where these authors acquired their intimacy with Jain Sanskrit and Prakrit literary heritage (Petit 2013: 247). However, according to Cort, the knowledge to recite Prakrit works did not mean they were also versed in Prakrit grammar or could understand Prakrit texts without a Sanskrit paraphrase (chāyā) (2015: 76, fn. 52).

14 rāvata sālivāhana āgare ko buddhivaṃta hiradai sarala tina jñāna-rasa pīyo hai. The wise Rāvata Sālivāhana of Agra with his simple heart has drank its (the Dharmaparīkṣā's) juice of knowledge.

to which the quote refers, that arose in Agra in the first half of the seventeenth century and of which Banārsī was a co-founder. Cort (2002b) has shown how similar movements arose in other North Indian cities around the same period, which eventually led to the split between the Bīsapanthī and Terahpanthī branches of Digambara Jainism.¹⁵ These movements developed out of changes within the Digambara religious circles that had already been instigated before (see Śāstri 1985: 537), and were characterised by a growing opposition to the authority of the bhaṭṭārakas, a rejection of many rituals and an emphasis on inner spirituality over outward ritual observance (see Flügel 2006; Cort 2002b; Plau 2018). The reference to Agra in the text by Manohardās is short, but it gives this sense of a Jain layman (named Salivāhana) who read the text of the Dharmaparīkṣā for the purpose of gaining knowledge. Another link to these new styles of religiosity as advocated by the adhyātma movement, is the fact that Manohardās originally came from Sanganer. Cort (2002b) describes how next to Agra, the region of Jaipur (and especially Sanganer) was another place where Digambara religiosity developed into a new style that focused on knowledge and self-realisation. Merchants from Sanganer would have travelled to Agra for business and would have come into contact with adhyātma paṇḍits who preached adhyātmik texts. In that way, the new movement that had started in 1626 according to Bakhatrām Śah would have spread to Sanganer (Cort 2002b: 50).¹⁶ The new spiritual religious movement progressed more strongly with the figures Jodhrāj Godīkā and Hemrāj Godīkā, two intellectuals who wrote in the 1660s (See Cort 2002b: 52-53). The dates of the changes that took place in Sanganer are around the time that Manohardās wrote his Dharmaparīkṣā (1648/1649 CE). This means that the most important adhyātma-inspired events might have occurred after Manohardās had left for Dhāmpur.

It is certain that much was happening in the religious environment in which Manohardās lived and worked, but can we read traces of these developments in his own writings? As I have mentioned above, his Jñāna Cintāmaṇi seems to suggest as much, since it is described as a work on spirituality (adhyātma). Works like the Cintāmaṇimāna Bāvanī and the Jñānapad, if they are indeed by him, would suggest a similar intellectual interest in Jainism. Further, the fact that he would have written a Guṇaṭhānā Gīta, a song on the guṇasthānas, seems to follow the interest the contemporary Jain intellectual circles had

15 The Digambara Terahpanth emerged in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in North India 'in protest against the lax and ostentatious conduct of contemporary orange-clad "Bīsa Panthī" ascetics [bhaṭṭāraks]' (Flügel 2006: 339). The precise origin of the Terahpanthīs or the history and organisation of its ascetics is not known anymore, but it seems that this Digambara branch was initiated by the lay community (Flügel 2006: 339).

Probably, the initially distinct adhyātma movement in Agra and the more radically anti-bhaṭṭāraka Terah Panth movement around Jaipur became indistinguishable 'with the waning of the influence of the Adhyatma movement in the eighteenth century and the institutional consolidation of the Terah Panth through the construction of numerous temples in North India' (Flügel 2006: 340).

16 Bakhatrām Śah was a Bīsapanth author critical of the adhyātma and Terāpanth movements (see Cort 2002b:

50).

for the fourteen guṇasthānas, or levels of spiritual purity, as explained in Nemicandra's Gommaṭasāra. Here again, Banārsīdās serves as the example. After his exposure to the Gommaṭasāra, he incorporates the fourteen levels of spiritual purity into Kundakunda's ideas by adding a chapter devoted to the guṇasthānas to his Samayasāra Nāṭaka, a Brajbhāṣā translation of Kundakunda's Samayasāra (Petit 2013: 130-131).¹⁷ Can we find reflections of the internal religious developments also in his bhāṣā Dharmaparīkṣā? Some parts of his writing indeed suggest such influence. First of all, in the maṃgalācaraṇa and praśasti, Manohardās mentions only the names of lay Jains (cf. supra for their names). Except for Amitagati who was his poetic predecessor, there is no reference to any member of the ascetic community. The religious intellectual authority instead seems to be put in the words of a paṇḍita (intellectual lay Jain) called Vegrāj (cf. supra), as the following verse demonstrates (Arrah G-24, 2):

arihaṃta-deva svarūpa, jo nara jānai mana dharai.¹⁸ so nara mukti anūpa, varai vegapaṃḍita kahai. 2

[I bow to] the Arhat in his true form. The man who knows and bears this in mind, that man [reaches] unparalleled liberation, says Vega Paṇḍita excellently.

In this line Manohardās indicates he is quoting the words of Vegrāj, which suggests that he received instruction on Jain religion by this layman who was specialised in Jain ritual knowledge (as his title paṇḍita indicates). This intellectual recognition of a paṇḍita, already in the second verse of the text, accords with the fact that the adhyātma movement and the wider religious intellectual developments were led by such Jain lay specialists.

The text by Manohardās puts the focus on Jain laymen as the main stimulators of religious thought since he further mentions several other laymen who have been involved with the text (cf. supra). The same sentence hints at another link to the new religious developments with its focus on knowledge (jo nara jānai) in order to reach enlightenment (so nara mukti anūpa). In fact, this sentence is reminiscent of a verse by Banārsīdās in his Banārsivilās (Banārsīdās 1905, 190-91):

deva tīrthaṃkara guru yatī, āgama kevali vaina, dharma ananta nayātamaka, jo jānai so jaina.

17 For a discussion on how Banārsīdās' Samayasāra Nāṭaka is a translation of Kundakunda's text see Cort (2015:

82-83).

The philosophy presented in Kundakunda's Samayasāra initially made Banārsīdās denounce all ritual culture.

However, after a series of lectures by a religious scholar named Rūpacand on the guṇasthānas in Nemicandra's Gommaṭasāra he changed his attitude perceiving ritual as belonging to one of the levels of spiritual purity (see Petit 2014: 390, 2013:131-135).

18 Other manuscripts (BORI 616-1875/76 and Ms. or. fol. 2309 from the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin) have: [...] jo nara jāni ru mana dharai | [...]

'The words of the gods, tīrthaṃkaras, gurus, ascetics, Āgamas and the enlightened beings, are the endless and just dharma – the one who knows this, he is a Jain' (translation by Plau 2018: 60).

The last stanza of this verse can be seen as a sort of shorter version of Manohardās' half verse. Also similar, are the other words or phrases that occur in its proximity. Just like Banārsīdās praises the gods, the tīrthaṃkaras, the gurus etc., similarly Manohardās' preceding verse is a salutation to the arhats, the gods, and the gurus.¹⁹ We might hypothesise that Manohardās took inspiration from Banārsīdās' text when he wrote the sentence, but it is also possible that this phrasing was a literary idiom among Jain authors at the time, since part of good poetic practice is to follow the literary conventions of one's community. In any case, the similarity confirms the embeddedness of Manohardās' text within the Jain literary culture of the time. A final interesting aspect within the quoted verse is the use of the word svarūpa. This word can have two different meanings. Firstly, svarūpa can refer to the embodied form of the Arhat (cf. arihaṃta deva svarūpa), which would in this case imply that the author is bowing to the embodied image of the Arhat.²⁰ Within the normative tradition of Digambara Jainism, worshipping the embodied aspect of the Jina-image is negatively evaluated, because Jains should not be attached to any god (the Jina) and should instead contemplate on their state of enlightenment.²¹ Another meaning to which the word svarūpa can refer is the 'true form' or 'pure form' of the Arhat.

This true form is the jīva in its perfected unconditioned state that is present in any living being, thus also in the Arhat, and can be attained by any living being. This is the meaning I believe to be more correct in the context of a Digambara text that further in the text explicitly refutes the worship of gods (cf. infra, p. 168), and is thus the meaning I have chosen in my translation. In this understanding, Manohardās bows to the Arhat in his 'true form', realising that this is no other than the form we can all attain in this life. The focus on self-realisation and inner spirituality is again something that adhyātmavāda, in

19 praṇamu arihaṃta deva | guru nirgrantha dayā dharma | bhava dadhi tāraṇa eva | avara sakala mithyāta bhaṇi || (Arrah G-24, 1).

20 Another related interpretation would be that svarūpa is used in a way that is common in Sanskrit literature when occuring at the end of a compound, namely meaning 'in person'. As such, a translation would be 'the Arhat, a god in person'.

21 This does not exclude that both within Śvetāmbara and Digambara Jainism, worship of Jina icons was (and is) a common practice (see Cort 2002b; 2010). Arguments for the use of Jina icons are usually 'predicated upon a natural and psychological necessity of images and forms: human perception operates by means of external images' (Cort 2010: 254). Thus, the icons are seen as means to advance towards the ideal of a pure soul.

The rejection of worshipping the embodied aspect of Jina-image is also at the heart of the Śvetāmbara Sthānakvāsi critique of Jina icons tout court. They see it as 'illogical to worship (or otherwise use) inert matter in order to attain a condition of pure spirit' (Cort 2010: 255).

the tradition of Kundakunda, puts stress on.²² Further, the reference to the svarūpa (as 'true form') of the Arhat is not uncommon to other traditions of the time. This form of veneration (Manohardās 'bows' to the Arhat) lies close to the practice of the Nirguṇ Sants who worship a god without qualities. As such, the choice of the svarūpa might as well indicate influences from this bhakti tradition.

To return to the influence of the adhyātma movement, Manohardās throughout his text repeats the following words which suggest his involvement in this 'spiritual' tradition:

mana rahasi manoharadās kahai ('Manohardās, whose mind is on spiritual matters, says').

The term rahasya ('secret', 'mystical') is, like adhyātma, a cover term for the Digambara 'mystical' or 'spiritual' tradition.²³ Manohardās' repeated self-reference as one who is engaged in this 'spirituality' suggests that at the time of writing his Dharmaparīkṣā he indeed was involved in some way in the newly upcoming movement. On the other hand, an element we do not find in Manohardās' Dharmaparīkṣā that was very prominent in adhyātmik texts is the emphasis on niścaya-vyavahāra (see Petit 2014). This is a theory developed by Kundakunda that distinguishes two points of view, a conventional point of view (vyavahāra) which describes different stages towards liberation, and an absolute point of view (niścaya) which considers only the existence of the pure supreme self (Petit 2019: 172). The absence of this theory in Manohardās' Dharmaparīkṣā suggests that within the intellectual circles of the time there were different topics and trends of thought circulating.

Although we cannot state with certainty that our author engaged directly in these adhyātma circles, the above reflections have made clear that Manohardās did not remain unaffected by the internal religious evolutions, which were most importantly characterised by an emphasis on knowledge through a stronger appreciation of the philosophy of Kundakunda, and expressed by the rise of the adhyātma movement.

The vital role of Banārsīdās as a Jain intellectual and his prowess in terms of literary composition and translation, by which he also became an exemplary littérateur, has already been explored above. Moving onwards from a focus on the socio-religious context, I would like to consider here the literary environment of Jain vernacular writing in order to understand the complete – though explicitly Jain – context in which Manohardās operated. Jain literature in Brajbhāṣā covered a wide array of genres ranging from devotional songs (e.g. Ānandghan, see Bangha 2013; or Dyānātrāya, see Cort 2013a;

2013b), over narratives (e.g. Bālak, see Plau 2018; 2019a; Jinadāsa, see Clines 2018; 2019;

and Manohardās) to more philosophical treatises (e.g. Banārsīdās' Samayasāra Nāṭaka).

22 See also Manohardās' use of the term anubhava ('inner experience of the self through insight') below (p. 26).

23 I thank John Cort for his help in pointing out that this phrase indeed suggests a link to the 'mystical' Digambara tradition.

For further reading on the meaning of rahasya (see Jain 1975).

The mere fact that in Miśra's historical overview of Jain literature in Old Hindi (identified as Maru-Gurjar) the list of authors from the eighteenth century alone stretches over five full pages (1997: 11-16), renders clear that Jains participated actively in the writing of Brajbhāṣā literature.²⁴ Moreover, Bangha (2018) has argued that Brajbhāṣā as a literary language had its roots in what he calls Maru-Gurjar, the language of the vernacular literature that consisted overwhelmingly of Jain narrative compositions. After its inception in Gujarat in the twelfth century, this literature extended into Madhyadeśa, flourishing mostly in Gujarat and western Rajasthan up to about the sixteenth century.

Bangha's main argument is that Maru-Gurjar provided the literary idiom, which he also identifies as a Jain literary idiom, that continued into Brajbhāṣā literature through geographic expansion and regionalisation (2018: 24).²⁵ This proves that the role of the Jains must not be overlooked in the development of Braj literary culture. It also proves that Manohardās did not start anything new with his writing in Brajbhāṣā. With his Dharmaparīkṣā he put himself within a well-established tradition of vernacular Jain

Bangha's main argument is that Maru-Gurjar provided the literary idiom, which he also identifies as a Jain literary idiom, that continued into Brajbhāṣā literature through geographic expansion and regionalisation (2018: 24).²⁵ This proves that the role of the Jains must not be overlooked in the development of Braj literary culture. It also proves that Manohardās did not start anything new with his writing in Brajbhāṣā. With his Dharmaparīkṣā he put himself within a well-established tradition of vernacular Jain