 Chair, the first session. So welcome, everyone. We will start straight ahead. We talk by Dr. Charles de Simone, who is from Ludwig Maximilian's University in Munich. Dr. de Simone studied in Berkeley, originally, in the MA, and then joined the University of Munich to work on the guidance of Professor Jens Uwe Erthmann on a very long time project that has been mobilizing a lot of energy in Munich over the past decade. Namely, the addition of a very important manuscript of the Dir Gagama, being the collection of long discourses as transmitted in Sanskrit by a particular school of Buddhism called Mula Sarvastivada. And so we have 35 minutes that are allocated for this talk. So I will ask Charles and the following speakers to try and stick to 25 minutes or so to leave some room for discussion, without further ado. And in the corner. Yeah. Sorry. Good morning, everybody. Thank you for having me. I appreciate coming. I've never been to London before, except for the airport. So it's an experience. Whatever reality lies behind a popular vision of Buddhist monasticism in ancient and middle-aged South Asia, that may include images of monks and nuns engaging in various forms of meditative asceticism focused on soteriological goals. The historic fact remains that literature, both memorized and once I should put a stopwatch on because there's no timer. Literature, both memorized and written, played a large role in the everyday life of those living in monastic communities. Buddha Vachana, the speech of the Buddha, was foremost among the literature available to the Buddhist community. And it was in sutras that the core of the religious teachings was laid out, justifying the doctrines that the community practiced. These sutras were collected in Agama or Nakaya collections in all of the major mainstream Buddhist schools. Of particular importance in terms of defending Buddhist doctrines against non-Buddhists was the Dear Gagama, or Collection of Long Discourses. The Gilgit-Dear Gagama manuscript is a mula-servasti vada text containing a collection of ancient canonical Buddhist sutras composed in Sanskrit with some proper elements and written on birch bark folios in the Gilgit-Bhamean type II script, also known as Proto-Sharada. This collection had been lost for centuries and was recently rediscovered in what is thought to be the border area of Afghanistan and Pakistan in the late 20th century. It is a long and often highly fragmentary manuscript consisting of 47 texts and is still in the process of being edited by several different scholars. It was the work of a scriptorium copied, is a scriptorium, copied by, this is a Jain scriptorium for the converse, although the people copying are North Indian Brahmins, not Jains. It was the work of a scriptorium copied by five to seven scribes who often engaged in the unusual practice of working together by trading folios back and forth. The Dear Gagama corresponds to the Dheganekhai of the Theravada tradition preserved in Pali and the Chang'ahan Jing of the Dharma Guptika tradition preserved in Chinese. The Dear Gagama, Dheganekhai and Chang'ahan Jing often parallel one another. There are numerous differences in the three collections and the three collections often disagree on topics and content. Within the sutra collection and its corresponding collections from the other traditions, we find various characters beyond Gautama and his many friendly interlocutors who are generally monks of his order, woven throughout the sutras. These other characters are often Anyatirthika Parivrajikas, wanderers who are adherents of another faith, real or hypothetical ones conjured by Gautama in rhetorical debates. Provide conflict in the narrative by questioning the logic of Buddhist doctrines or the spiritual realization of the Buddha himself. Although this collection was quite probably originally used for the purposes of proselytization or rebutting arguments from non-Buddhists by showing the superior merits of Buddhist doctrine, the arguments employed would not be convincing in the slightest to anyone who was not already a believer in the Buddhist faith. Upon first glance, the beginnings of the Prasadaka and Prasadaniya sutras now edited and translated for the first time appear to introduce texts with disparate themes and concerns, sharing similarity only in their titles. However, these two paired sutras from the Yugendapata of the dear Gautama set near the end of the Buddha's career are directly related in setting forth the Mula Sarvasthiva in positions on what makes a teacher and his doctrine successful. Both texts assume the format of a debate. The Prasadaka Sutra takes the shape of a hypothetical debate where Gautama repeatedly offers, if some non-Buddhist were to say that, you should say this in reply, types of hypothetical situations. The Prasadaniya Sutra revolves around an actual debate in the narrative between Gautama and Shariputra, with Gautama questioning the depth of Shariputra's lion's roar about the supremacy of the Buddha regarding Sambodi. Although, even if the narrative structure takes the shape of a debate, the stakes are quite low in both texts as the possibility that other religious leaders or their doctrines could exceed the Buddha or his doctrines is never taken seriously. Several schools of thought, some of which that are no longer existent are represented in these texts, but the Jains referred to as the Yugendas are employed as the chief example with the Prasadaka Sutra revolving around Mahavira's death and the resulting chaos that ensued within the Jain monastic community. These Anyatirtikas, who were seldom, if ever, encountered by the Mula Sarvastivara monks at the time of the copying of the Dear Gautama manuscript, had become something akin to imaginary spirits of old adversaries arguing the positions from positions no longer relevant or perhaps even understood by the Buddhists of the era. It is in the Prasadaka Sutra that we see the bulk of the rhetoric around the views of non-Buddhist groups. Well, the Prasadaniya Sutra builds on the groundwork laid in the Prasadaka and then goes into further detail on the superiority of Gautama and his doctrines. Although the sutras are antagonistic to all non-Buddhist ideas, it is the Jains that serve as the name foils to which the Buddha Gautama contrasts their inadequacy with the supremacy of Buddhist doctrine. In fact, the narrative of the Prasadaka Sutra begins with the novice Chunda witnessing the death of Nyatiputra as Mahavira is called throughout the text in the city of Paapa. This is the Sanskrit, I'll give the translation. Just then the Negranta Nyatiputra had died in the Mansun residence in Paapa. With his death, the Negrantas, the followers of Nyatiputra, dwelt split, became divided, contentious, quarrelsome, aggressive, and fallen into dispute, saying, in this manner, I know the doctrine and the discipline, you do not know the doctrine and the discipline, I know the doctrine and the discipline in such a way, you know the doctrine and the discipline in such a way. My understanding is consistent, yours is inconsistent, mine is coherent, and yours is incoherent. One said after what is to be said before, another said before what is to be said after. Further saying, what you have adhered to is totally refuted, your theory has been taken up for the sake of argument, for release from this argument cast aside your rebuked. Reveal if you know the answer. You've been asked to speak. In this way, they strike an injure one another with sharp words, they accuse, and then there's an ellipse because we have a damage in the manuscript. Even their speech is not especially understood by one who is in agreement with doctrine. Even those who are white clad householder disciples of the Negranta Nyatiputra, they reside feeling revulsion, aversion, disagreement, and deviation towards the Negrantas, towards the followers of Nyatiputra, who dwell split, are divided, contentious, quarrelsome, aggressive, and fallen into dispute, obviously because of this doctrine and discipline that is ill-proclaimed, poorly imparted, not conducive to emancipation, not leading to perfect awakening, broken, without cohesion, unreliable. The teacher is not a tatagata, and are a complete and perfect buddha. After seeing the state of the Jain community upon the death of their leader, tuned to things to inform Ananda, who in turn decides they should go directly to Gautama, who is an old man himself and not long for the world. Hearing of Nyatiputra's death, Gautama uses the news to preach a sermon on the nature of why an adequate teacher, that is to say a buddha, is needed for any set of doctrines to be viable. Gautama explains to tuneda that a disciple who correctly practices an ill-proclaimed doctrine and discipline, ladharman venaya, espoused by one who is not a buddha, is blame worthy, as is the teacher and the doctrine. Well, a disciple who does not practice an ill-proclaimed doctrine correctly is praise worthy. Conversely, a disciple who incorrectly practices a well-proclaimed doctrine, espoused by a buddha, is blame worthy. While the teacher and the doctrine are praise worthy, and the disciple who practices a well-proclaimed doctrine is praise worthy. Why is the doctrine and discipline of the Nyagrantas ill-proclaimed and poorly imparted, et cetera? Although it is not explicitly stated, it is clear from Gautama's explanation that the fault lies directly with Nyatiputra, who because he was not a buddha, inherently taught inferior doctrines. It should be noted that at no point are the doctrines of the Nyagrantas ever made clear or compared to those of the Buddhists. This would appear to be beside the point, as it would seem that the fact that they are not the doctrine and discipline of Gautama is enough to forever damn them. Beyond their prominence in the frame story, the Nyagrantas are not mentioned by name again within either Sutra. Although we no longer hear of the Jains, Anyatirtika Parivrajikas appear quite regularly in the role of hypothetical interlocutor to Gautama, so that he can illustrate to his disciples the correct way to answer those questioning his doctrines. And the next non-Buddhist doctrines to be singled out are the Brahmanic doctrines of Udrika Ramaputra, one of Gautama's former teachers. The discussion of Ramaputra is prefaced by an almost haughty statement as to his status as a teacher. Certainly Chunda, certainly Chunda insofar as there are those regarded as teachers, I do not consider even a single teacher equal to myself, one who was thus endowed with the highest gain in the highest fame. Now I am just such a teacher. Certainly Chunda insofar as there are communities or multitudes or assemblies, I do not consider even a single assembly of disciples to be equal with myself. That which is thus endowed with the highest gain in the highest fame. Now I have just such a community of monks, therefore Chunda, one should truly have recourse to the community of monks and the teacher. As for Gautama's estimation of Ramaputra's doctrine of seeing one does not see, which would appear to be related to pre-Buddhist concepts of meditation focused on attempts to have control over one's awareness while not being aware in any focused way. Gautama castigates Ramaputra's analogy in the flat of the blade and the edge of a razor by extension his teachings on the whole as inferior and goes on to correct Ramaputra's aphorism of seeing one does not see, reframing it in terms of fulfilling Buddhist doctrine. Monks saying it properly, they should say seeing he does not see. In this case, seeing it properly, they should say, why is this an ellipse? The holy life is fulfilled by this perspective. Thinking I will fulfill that perspective, he does not see it. Thinking the holy life is perfected in every way he sees it. Certainly the holy life that is perfected in every way is perfect by this perspective thinking. Having removed that perspective, I will include another more perfect perspective in that way it is more something, unfortunately. And he does not see what that something is. The last example of non-Buddhist doctrines I'll discuss or I'll mention today occur towards the end of the Prasadika Sutra. When Gautama states that he has correctly explained all views associated with the beginning and the end of existence for Vanta and Aparanta and goes on to explain how they are incorrectly stated by other groups of ascetics or Brahmanas. Incorrect views regarding the beginning concerned the eternity of the self and the world, eternity of the self and suffering, the creation of the self and the world and the creation of self and suffering. Gautama restates these incorrect views about the beginning and after confirming that some ascetics and Brahmanas actually hold such views, explains that he does not accept them because different ascetics and Brahmanas hold different opinions and there is no consensus. Gautama says that he is not accepting the end of existence, but he is not accepting the end of existence which is a rather weak reason not to accept them. Incorrect views regarding the end of existence concerned the Samnivara, Asamnivara, Naiva Samnina Samni, or Naiva Samnia Samnivara, Uchevada and the Tristadharma and Nirvana Vada views. Gautama restates these incorrect views about the end and after confirming that some ascetics and Brahmanas have no consensus. Gautama then explains that he has approached those who hold such views and asking them if they really believe they're doctrines and then gives his reasons for rejecting them. That Anyatirthikas and the views they hold would be held in a rather low regard and Buddhist sutras is not surprising. However, the consistent lack of any evidence of thorough knowledge of the doctrines marks the sutras in the Duryagama as separate from the sort of doctrinal or doxographical arguments in commentarial or philosophical literature as seen in texts such as the Avidara Kosha Vasubandhu and the commentaries to his work by the likes of Yashu Mithra and Stirmati, all three of whom were associated with the Sarvasthivada tradition. This apparent lack of interest in the actual content of the Anyatirthika views fits in quite well with our understanding of the Duryagama as a text meant for proselytization. If one's goal is selling your own views and community to as broad an audience as possible, then a nuanced examination of competing groups is perhaps not the best course of action. However, based on the nature of the composition of the manuscript, it has become clear that by the time of its copying, the Mulsarvasthivadans did not have any competition among the Anyatirthikas that would necessitate any strong outreach and the purpose of the text had probably shifted to one of canonical completeness. There are numerous errors in the content of the manuscript that may indicate either careless copying of the scribes and its production or that this manuscript is a product of a long copying tradition where multiple errors were introduced over many years of copying. Whatever the case may be, it seems that the copyists either were not familiar with the content of the sutras or did not take the time to check their work thoroughly. It has been hypothesized that this manuscript was made either for the meritorious act of sutra copying, a religious activity in the history of Buddhism or for the sake of maintaining a monastic library and was almost surely not intended to be used for study. Interestingly, there is evidence that the birch bark portfolios of the manuscript had been carefully repaired before the sutras were copied onto the manuscript. Seven uktras into folio 295 verse 8, there is a birch bark patch that is clearly seen to be pasted on top of the manuscript. Instead of the content of the sutra, six filler marks are written on the patch. Filler marks appear regularly in the manuscript, especially where the birch bark is warped or otherwise unsuitable to write on. However, the patch to the manuscript does not appear to be faulty. The only reason for the filler marks seems to be to indicate that the damage had been repaired. That in fact, it was most likely a fix to the folio before the uktras were copied. As we can see, that the bottom of the vocale agar from Raha Krittam in line six has been written onto the patch where it is extended onto the space before the conjunct uktra. You can get that, it's okay. The repair to the manuscript here has even affected the uktra account for the line of the final six uktras are added interliterally underneath the bottom of the line in order to maintain the fidelity of the uktra account for the sake of copying the folios. These patches which I have witnessed used in several instances throughout the manuscript suggests that the manuscript was copied was considered to be of some importance as an object and that the content of the manuscript was perhaps of only a secondary concern. The greatest relationship between the two texts is that they share the theme of the nature of teachers and the importance of placing one's faith in a proper teacher, that is to say the Buddha. Being set at a period when the possibility of a Buddhism without a Buddha was looming on the horizon, both sutras are concerned with the establishing supremacy of the Buddhist faith over others to nullify any doubts that may arise among the faithful. The Prasadika Sutra implicitly states that while the nirgruntas fell into dispute after their founder's death, the Buddhist doctrines are complete and as long as they are memorized and conveyed correctly there cannot be any confusion even without a Buddha. The Prasadika Sutra takes pains to show how the founder of Buddhism is supreme above all others with explicit purpose being to inspire the faithful. The two sutras accomplish their task of promoting Gautama's doctrines by denigrating those of non-Buddhist aesthetics. Their portrayal of these non-Buddhist aesthetics exists not as an accurate record of their practices and doctrines but rather as a common narrative trope whose purpose is solely to further the narrative, providing conflict and serving as foils for Gautama who disproves their views while legitimizing his own. Thank you. I can have a seat. So we have plenty of time for questions. And I would like to thank very much Dr. Desimone for his very clear talk and very interesting introduction to also the problem of textual transmission and the material issues that arise when someone studies a very early manuscript like the Dhirgagama. And maybe to open the discussion, I was wondering whether you could say a bit more about because you made a careful assessment of the representation of the Anyathirthikas in the particular sutras that you edited. And maybe if you can speak a bit more about how you perceive this kind of representation within the border context of Dhirgagama because the long discourses have a lot to say about what means, but about the Anyathirthikas in general. And how do you see this picture fits with all the sutras transmitted within this particular connection, but also beyond. So in, for example, in the Neganikai, et cetera. Do you see something very peculiar in this text or is it consistent with the broader representation of the Dhirgagama in early canonical writings? Why do you mean by consistent? Do you mean, is there any, what I mean is that, is there any, for example, the particular motif that introduced the story seems very, it's very interesting because it refers to some kind of historical memory whether it is literally constructed or not about the particular events. And this particular event is also referred in other sources, right? The death of Nyatiputra is in the Sanghiti Sutta and then one other Majamadakaya. It's, the Sanghiti Sutra actually, it's possible that it was composed from this event from the Prasarika where they say you should recite or it's saying what you've learned. It's fairly consistent in the Dhirgagama and the Chanahung Jing. There's sort of these differences in terms of how the rebukes that the Jains are giving to one another are. Like the Dhirgagama strays from the Dhirgagama quite a bit. And unfortunately, the Sanghiti Sutra, like the Central Asian Sanskrit version is very damaged here and the Dhirgagama was very damaged here at the very beginning and the folios were actually fused together in the bundle. Like you saw those three folio bundles from the rare bookshop. And this was one large pile that was sort of ripped apart and the places where it's ripped, the upper layers are very much stuck together so you can't read like the verso of one folio because it's stuck to the recto. So the parts that are the same are sort of recorded in all three versions but the parts that are different are unfortunately lost in the Sanskrit. So this really sort of leaves us sort of lingering on what they wanted to say but we don't know right now. So we can take probably five questions also. So if there is any question, why is your hands? Well, the Buddhists were very concerned with how and this is a late sutra and I mean, who can say when they were written after the Buddha had died but if it was preached, it was preached late in the Buddha's career and there was a concern of what happens after a Buddha is gone. So you have like Arta and Vyajna and sort of the meaning and the literal meaning and the spirit of the Dharma and the Vinaya and there was concern and they talk about this in some detail in the texts. If you have some of the Arta but not or some of the Vyajna, you're not quite there but you very politely say to a monk like the Buddha saying if you meet other monks and they know the meaning but they don't know the spirit or they know the spirit, they don't know the meaning very politely say actually is this and so you remember it properly in the future because the canon has to be complete or the doctrine has to be complete and when Nya Tiputra died, I mean the Jains might disagree on this but when Nya Tiputra died, their group fell apart because people said I remember it this way, you remember it this way and of course after the Buddha died, the same thing happened. At the Prasadaniya sutra for example we have the main interlocutor as Shariputra and this, you could see this sort of displaying a sort of tension within the Buddha's community because Shariputra is foremost in wisdom and he would be if Gautama dies, which he will maybe Shariputra should be the new Buddha but the text is quite clear that no, this can't be and Shariputra, so we have Shariputra as the mouth be saying after the Buddha, well he doesn't have to Buddha dies but he says there can only be one Buddha in the past there's been a Buddha in the future to be Buddha there can never be two and after Buddha dies that's it until we have a new Loka Datu and you have to have faith in the Buddha. So to have Shariputra say this really allays these sort of, you could see his courtly intrigue almost of usurpers and later we have David Datta who was actually trying to usurp and that didn't end well for him either. So something like around 700 to 1000 CE by radiocarbon dating or 654 something so 7th or 8th century. So this is, it's not an early manuscript but it's not a late manuscript either and it's at a time when sort of these Agama texts weren't really, they weren't really within the zeitgeist of the Mulusir Vastivadans at this point I would say. Maybe the script that is used in this particular Agama is the same as the Mulusir Vastivadana Vinayana that was found in the Sarayana. This is probably from the same cache as the Gilgit texts but it was found, well maybe it was found at the same time and just stayed in someone's basement, we don't know. No that's, there's some, I mean I'm not an expert on Jainism but I know like what Ian Gardner or wrote an article recently suggesting that probably not so many Jains in the greater Gandhara area and it would seem that these Jain doctrines were just sort of like old stories sort of like that you just keep, you sort of roll out to say remember when we beat those guys and look how great we are if people were even reading this text which it doesn't seem likely that this particular manuscript was actually being actively used as a text to be written. Please. Sorry, there was a question by Louis and then, oh, probably something you were, yeah, please. I mean, it's difficult to say because you only have, especially with this manuscript, it's divorced from its fine location so we don't really know, we can only hypothesize but based on the paleographical analysis you see that it was probably just scribes just copying and we don't know, we don't know why and we don't know if it was in a library or if it was someone commissioned them to create this particular text because it was important for a certain person or a family or something. The scribes might have been Buddhists, they might not have been Buddhists, we don't know. So, para-textual materials, nothing that comes to mind. What was that funny about? Do you know where it was found? Oh, is it? No one, they say, but do you know what year this was? That he says this happened? Sometime in the 90s, I would assume. Yeah, it was 98 and then it was when Casanova found it. But was it in the 90s or was it in the 80s even that he, this is some hot information, everybody. Many of these manuscripts have very fascinating journeys to, from their very obscure caches to the desk of the philologist. Are there any other questions? There's one over there, but maybe you've thought better of it. Yeah, well, that certainly speaks for my own research. Where does it state that? In one of the chain issues, I wanted to jump. And yeah, I would, I would love, do you happen to know why? Just specifically the Moulin-sur-Vastivana. Yeah, yeah, let's talk after, I'd love to hear about that. Very good. So maybe we can move on to the next paper. So we'll, we started a bit late. So we can catch up a bit with the Vistai. Thank you very much, Moulin-sur-Vastivana. And now it's time to welcome Dr. Christopher Keech-Chappell from Loyola-Marie-Monts University. I never had the pleasure to meet him, so I don't have much to introduce him. But I look forward to his paper on the conversion of Jaina women to the Buddhist past according to the Pali Canon. So it's good to meet Charles because there are two LMU's in the world and one of them's in Germany and the other one is in Los Angeles. And if you Google LMU, you don't know what part of the world you may end up. The work that I've put together for today depends upon the Terigata as its primary source. And the Terigata tells stories of early Buddhist nuns. And two apparently had been members of Jain religious orders before converting to Buddhism. Vara Kundalakesa, who had been born, quote, into a financier's family, we're not sure if it was actually a Jain family, though it might have been, had trained as a Jain nun, eventually became a master of debate, traveling from village to village as a religious teacher. She encountered Sariputra and converted to Buddhism. The second nun, Nandutra, had been born into a Brahmin family and then followed the path of Jain asceticism. She similarly became skilled in debate and became a Buddhist nun after an encounter with Mogulana. A third woman, Visaka, married to a Jain merchant, became a significant donor to the Buddhist Sangha. And this talk will speculate how these three narratives characterized from a Buddhist perspective, early conversations between Buddhists and Jains. In the early histories of Buddhism and Jainism, we are blessed with a literary presence of several named women. And my other world is the world of Christian theology in which I've had some training and do some teaching. And this is one of the great laments. We have Ruth, we have Esther, we have a handful of women from the Hebrew Bible. Again, Mary Magdalene, Mary Mother of God, and a few other named women, but very few and far between compared to the number of men who are named. On the Buddhist side, we have the names and stories of the Buddha's mother, his stepmother and wife, Maya Mahapajapiti and Yashodara. And the stories of many other women are preserved in the Terigata, including Tissa, Sumina, Upasama, Mitha, the different Visakha, Uttara, and Sangha who had been members of the royal harem. And Sundari Nanda, daughter of Mahapajapiti, the Buddha's aunt, the woman who raised him. And this woman, Sundari Nanda, is the Buddha's half sister. Additionally, more than 50 nuns are named and described in the Terigata. And eight or nine are declared to have been arhats. On the Jain side, many names and stories from the early period can be found. These include, according to this Fetambara, the first person to achieve freedom, Marudevi, mother of the first Yurtankara, Urshaba, or Adinat. Adinat's two daughters, Brachmi and Sundari, who reportedly invented writing and mathematics, and the Ashtapad Temple in Hastinipur, they are displayed in a place of great prominence along with their 100 brothers. Another woman named prominently in the early material is Mali Nath. According to the Fetambara, she was the 19th Tirtankara and the only woman Tirtankara. Rajimati, the betrothed of Nami Nath, the 22nd Tirtankara, who repulsed by the wedding feast preparations, renounced on his way to get married, as did his fiance. And now we're sort of veering into more mythic material, but Pabavati, the former queen who, in the form of a snake, was rescued by Parshavanath with her husband. And the two of them later saved Parshavanath from drowning. And also from the time of Parshavanath, Pushpachula, who headed the order of nuns, the Aryakas, during the time of Parshavanath, the 23rd Tirtankara. And then finally, and Whitney Calting has written quite a bit about Chandana, the imprisoned princess who fed Mahavira and later became a nun and the head of 36,000 Sadhvis, 1400 of whom are said to have attained perfect knowledge and liberation. Now, one major difference can be found between these two traditions, and here it's a little bit about the reception and the continuation of text production. In the case of the Buddhism, the Terigata, the songs of the Teris, the songs of the elder women, the Terigata was preserved from the time of the development of the Buddhist canon. It was composed, memorized, and eventually written in the Pali language, used in the literary convention of the Shloka, a verse of 32 verses, four sets of eight syllables. And I actually dreamt last night of these being sung in harmony and counter harmony as one will find in the Thai temple. And as was said earlier, do these people even know what they're saying? But the remarkable thing is that these texts continue to be memorized and recited and transmitted. And the recitation is actually quite entrancing. Now, by contrast, the Jain canon did not survive the great migration caused by famine some 2,300 years ago, at which time Jainism split into two current major groupings, the Svetambara and the Dagumbara. And as we heard a little bit earlier and the same actually was true of the Buddhists as well, were very many differences between these various schools and the case of Jainism, these two schools, and specifically the status of women. Hence the narratives that provide the foundation for the Jain aspect of this paper largely arise from lore and texts except exclusively by the Svetambaras, not the Dagumbaras. And their antiquity is not as certain as is the antiquity of the narratives from the Terigata. Though the Svetambara and the Dagumbara do agree on the core principles as found in the Tavartis Sutra, each developed its own commentarial traditions even on the Tavartis Sutra and take very philosophical interpretations and particularly in regard to women and of course Publian of Jainism's gender and salvation gives us the full picture in that regard. Hence of what's been put forward, the older identifiable source is the Terigata. This was deemed to be part of the Kudaka Nakaya or the miscellaneous discourses. These miscellaneous discourses also include the Apadana, which is another important source regarding Buddhist women. And these texts probably reached their written form about 2100 years ago. However, this part of the canon was not for export and the miscellaneous discourses did not make it into East Asia but remained exclusively in the Pali. Now, while the oldest Jain attacks the Acharunga Sutra, which is about 300 BC, does make mention of the order of nuns, it does not include specific narratives to the detail that we'll hear from the Terigata about individual nuns. The Kalpasutra remains similarly mute on the details regarding nuns but nonetheless names the women who headed the orders whose responsibilities, in fact, and if we think about this, were greater than their corresponding male counterparts simply due to the number of persons to be overseen. Under Mahavira Chandana oversaw, as we heard, 36,000 nuns while Sulasa and Reviti oversaw 318,000 female lay votaries. Under Parshavanat Pushpachula oversaw 38,000 nuns and Subrata oversaw 327,000 lay women and under Urshaba, the first Yurtankara, Brahmasundari supervised 300,000 nuns and Subhadra supervised 554,000 lay female devotees. Now, were these real numbers? Some musicologists would say otherwise that they have to do with ratios and tuning systems but let's just say that there were a large number of women that were supervised by religious authorities and that it can be surmised that there was a greater number, we know greater number of nuns than there were of monks, greater number of female followers in total than there were male followers, so the women had great responsibility. Now, I want to talk quickly about the stories of three women. The first is Bhada Kundalikesa. She was born into a wealthy family in Rajgiraha, the town between Alanda and Gaia on the Nimdara River. It has a wonderful, like ski lift to take you up to the top of the mountain near there now. In one day, sitting in her window, she was glancing out and saw this handsome young man being led away to his execution. And she begged her father to arrange for his release and she married him promptly. And even though his father was a Brahmin at the court, he himself was not an honorable man and he was being put to death apparently for good reason as his wife later found out. But as sometimes happens, the place where he was to be executed had a life of its own and it had taken a promise from him, from this rogue man called Satuka that if he was spared, he would make an offering to the cliff itself. So he told his new wife, Bhada Kundalikesa, that he needed to go to this cliff and make an offering and please, would she get some money together to make an offering to the cliff? Once they got to the cliff, she got very, very afraid because she could tell he was up to no good. He became very, very cold. And she realized that he was about to push her off the cliff, take her jewels and get out of escape into freedom. And he called her a fool, demanded that she hand her jewels over to him and she outsmarted him. She said, oh, please, give me one less, good embrace. And she embraced him from the front and then she embraced him from the back and she pushed him over the cliff and he died. And the cliff spoke up and the cliff said, bravo, and praised her keen presence of mind. Wisdom is not always confined to men. A woman too is wise and shows it now and then. Now Kundalikesa was deeply embarrassed by her error, first in marrying and then being forced to kill this man. And she could not return to her family. She joined the order of Jain nuns. She removed all of her hair and eventually mastered all of the Jain teachings. She then left the formal constraints of the Jain path and wandered from town to town, inviting people to engage in religious debate. While in each town, she stuck a rose apple branch and a pile of sand and then dared anyone to enter into conversation. And with this, she gained quite a reputation as an interlocutor for all who were interested in philosophical matters. Once, while in Sabati up north near a couple of us do, Sariputra, close disciple of the Buddha, accepted the challenge. Vada put her questions first and Sariputra answered each of these with ease and then Sariputra asked her, one, what is that? And she was stumped. If any of you can answer that, it's a good riddle. Okay, what is one? And she asked to become his pupil but he referred her to the Buddha. And hearing his words, it is said that she gained instant enlightenment, that she became an arhat right there receiving her first darshan with the Buddha. And the Buddha saw it immediately and said, come, Vada. And this was highly unusual because most, both male but particularly female, entrance to the order had to go through a long process of petition. And in the Terigata, we get her own words. And this is what she says is both autobiographical and philosophical. I cut my hair, this is a portion of it, I cut my hair and wore the dust. And I wandered in my one robe, finding fault where there was none and finding no fault where there was. Then I came from my rest one day at Vulture Peak and saw the pure Buddha with his monks. I bent on my knee, paid homage, pressed my palms together, we were face to face. Come, Vada, he said, that was my ordination. I have wandered through Anga and Magadha, Vajikashi and Kosala. 55 years with no debt, I have enjoyed the alms of these kingdoms. And then this is a very touching end, she says, a wise lay follower gained a lot of merit. He gave a robe to Vada who was free from all bonds. So simple. This poem conveys her asceticism, her critique seemingly of what to her perhaps was an extreme practice, her conversion to Buddhism, her ascent as a Buddhist teacher and her gratitude to those who lent her support in five differing kingdoms. Alice Colette, a scholar here in England, devotes an entire chapter of her new book, which I commend to you, Lives of Early Buddhist Nuns, to the conversion of Vada to Buddhism. She provides a synoptic view of the many places in which this story is told, including two Jataka tales, the Dhammapada in even in giant texts. Ranjini Obiyasekara has translated a Sinhalese version of her story as found in the Sadharma Rattnavalaya. And both Anmonius at Harvard and Leslie Orr at Concord University have commented that the Buddha-Lakesha story has served as inspiration throughout Tamil Nadu for the longstanding tradition of female orators there. There's a Tamil-Buddhist text, now lost, called the Kuntikkeshi, which is about this woman. But the giant counterpart survives, which is called the Nilakechi, and it reverses the story and says that eventually Kuntikkeshi ran into a Jain women debater and the Jain nun defeated her in debate. Now the next story, a little bit shorter here, is Nandutra, a similar tale in some ways, but this woman we know originally was a Brahmin. She converted to Jainism and, like Bhada Kuntilikesa, became renowned and traveled around India with a rose apple bow in hand, challenging anyone to religious debate. She encountered the learned Buddhist Mogulana and converted. Her poem, translated by Susan Murcott, conveys her conversion from Bakhmataka Hinduism to Jainism and then from Jainism to Buddhism. She says, I used to worship fire, the moon, the sun and the gods. I bathed at Fords and took many vows. Then I shaved my head and slept on the ground and did not eat after dark. Other times, I used to love makeup and jewelry and baths and perfumes, just serving my body obsessed with sensuality. The faith came, I took up the homeless life. Seeing the body as it really is, desires have been rooted out. Coming to birth is ended in my cravings as well. Untied from all that binds, my heart is at peace. A precious ending, untieing the knot of craving. Then the third woman I want to bring up is Visakha. The Buddha and the early Buddhists and even Peter here relies upon donors. And one of the most generous and well-known donors of Buddhism was a woman named Visakha, whose husband, Punavadana, was a wealthy Jain merchant from Sabati. And Visakha herself was the granddaughter of Mendicca, a wealthy merchant from the city of Badia in the Visaris kingdom. And she was the daughter of Dhananjaya and Sumina. At the age of 16, she attended one of Buddha's talks during his visit to their city and converted to Buddhism. She then later married Punavadana, the son of Migara, a wealthy Jain merchant from Sabati. And at the occasion of her wedding, and I love these details, her father commissioned an oversized piece of gold jewelry that extended from her head. And you can imagine a nose ring, sort of a crown and a veil and then an ear ring. And it goes all the way down to her feet, made of gold, silver, and jewels, including the depiction of a peacock. And even though her husband was Jain, her husband Punavadana was anxious not to offend in any way his wife's important family. And he allowed the Buddha and his monks to stay at his house when they visited. And then his own mother and father converted and become Buddhists. There's no mention, some of you may have variants on this story that he actually converted. But nonetheless, he supported his wife and his wife provided liberally for the monks of the Buddhist Sangha, donating food, medicine, and robes on a regular basis. She tried to sell that big hunk of jewelry, but no one would buy it. But she gave the equivalent amount of money to build a seven-story vahara. And the story has that the Buddha and his entourage often stayed in that particular vahara. She lost grandchildren and went into a place of deep sorrow. And the Buddha reminded her of the ephemerality of bodily existence. And this is a quote. Whatever of sorrow, lamentation, and pain there is in this world, all this arises from clinging. Where clinging is not, these are not. Therefore, happy and sorrowless are those who cling not to anything in the world. Set your affections on, set not your affections on the things of the earth. He gave her advice and she gave him advice. And she said, you must be willing to ordain people during the rainy season because that's when everybody comes and hangs out with the monks. And then there was another case, a rather touching story of a nun who it turned out was pregnant. And many in the sangha wanted to expel her. But she said on the behalf of the nun, no, she was pregnant. She didn't probably even know and let her stay. So she was able to become a nun and go to full term with the baby. So a couple of observations. One, given the level of detail in these stories, I think that they're quite accurate and not merely hagiographical. And in biblical criticism, there's form criticism and redaction criticism. The form criticism won't work too well here because everything became placed within this chantable, memorizable type of verse. Whereas in the Bible, the big issue is, was Jesus really as anti-Semitic as he seems to have been? And for two reasons we know probably not. One, the word usage is different. It's more contemporary to when the gospels were actually written. And redaction, which is the context, was not appropriate to the time when the Buddha, when rather Jesus would have spoken those words, but would have been appropriate at the time when Christianity was expanding through the Roman Empire and had to make itself palatable to Romans who didn't want to become Jews in order to be Christians, if you can follow that. And therefore, there has to be something very distinct and timely about narrative in order for it to most likely be accurate. And with both poems and with the anecdotes associated with all of these women, there's nothing to say that there would be any reason to contrive these narratives. And with what little we have of the giant material, it appears quite a bit later. And yes, there's all sorts of reasons why these stories would be developed of the giant women in one particular sect and not the other, et cetera. So redaction criticism would say that we can't really say that there's 100% historical accuracy just because the level of detail isn't even provided in the earliest level of the story. There's also something very, okay, two minutes? A minute. Okay, so touching about the end of each of the poems of Kundalakesa's poem and of Nanduta's poem, is there something very real feeling and slightly self-deprecating about their reflections and self-awareness? Now, just a couple of comments that modern scholars, and this is happening again and again, not only in regard to women, but in regard to Tantra, and one of the issues that everyone seems to say, oh, we need to pay more attention to Jainism, but not too many people get around to doing it. There's a new book on early Buddhist women by Pruti Raman Chaturvedi that completely neglects any mention that the Saka's husband was from a Jain family, and they just sort of gloss over and they actually say that Jainism isn't interesting to their study. And then with Ranjani Obayasekara's work, again, there's really no detail on Jainism, and a question comes up, did this just simply not get included in the later Sinhalese commentaries, the discussions of Jainism? And then to wrap up, I guess the winners write history in some ways, but as we know, the Buddhists did not survive in India, the Jains did, and I'm echoing the words of Pappanabh Jaini in a sense, but why, why did Buddhism disappear? Why did Jainism survive? And my last observation is with its firm moral code, the enduring presence of both nuns and monks, and the ongoing support of a wealthy laity. Jainism has continued to be practiced in India into the present, recognizable then as now, by its distinct robes, the plucking of hair, the eschewal of high beds, and utmost care in all manner of eating. Thank you. So thank you very much for this very pleasant journey. I don't know if you want to stand or if you want to sit, you have enough. I'll stand. Okay. I would just like maybe to contribute a comment before I open the floor. I found your journey actually very delightful, very interesting and opening up to a world, but I would just, in my opinion, this world is very much literary, and I think that a little bit of theology and history wouldn't hurt. And in the particular case of the Terigata, you seem to have basically collated the early verses that might be extremely, indeed very early, even if I would personally doubt as a French skeptic, that they were found in a written form as we know it before the Comanera. But then the narrative story, the narrative framework that actually speaks about, for example, Kundalak AC becoming a nun, is actually from the commentary by Damapala, who is probably an 8th century author. And so there is, although we know that these verses where they often contain the kernel of the story, and so it's quite clear that they circulated in oral form with some kind of a paratextual story that might be, in some cases, the kernel of which might be very old, the received text. So if you look at reception history, the received text that we can read on the basis of which there is such a lush amount of details is actually fairly late. And so there is in this respect, no particular motivation to prioritize Buddhist data over Jaina sources because they might be sometimes co-evil or something like this. So they could be very well-read together in my humble opinion. Yeah, I agree with you on that, but even the root verse is so much more rich than what we have in the Jain material. Yeah, the stories we don't know for sure, but the emotion in the verses themselves, which seem to be quite old, I would still make this a similar argument, but of course not for the detail about the larger frame story. So thank you, and if there is any question, Aluna. No, Visaka was not Jain, no. Her husband, perhaps. And also with Wudela Kesa, her family might have been because they were financiers. We don't know for certain, but it does seem that she did practice Jain asceticism. Any Proviser Ashokhnaki? I would love to know that, but I'm not sure. Does someone know Master of Debate, the poly for that, what that would have been? I'd have to go back to the text and find. Very good question. Yes, please. So there is a question first there on the back, and then, yeah. A good challenge. Okay, we still have maybe time for one question if there is a question. Yeah, Peter. No, again, this would be from this later commentarial, and it's something I would love to search down a bit. Maybe Humphene. Yes, please. I'm sorry, you had a question. As you wish, but so we have, we would like to, we are already five minutes late, so we have maybe two, three minutes for the question. Okay. Yeah, please. You are a performer. I have made some observation. It is rightly said that the greatest story teller in the world are the Buddhists and Jainists. The treasure trove of Jaina stories has some jumps of conversion stories, of conversion from Buddhism to Jainism and the reverse of it, and from Brahminism to Jainism. For instance, well, the Bruchad Katakoshin's Sanskrit of Harishena, the Kahakosu of Sri Chandra in Prakrit, and then the Kannada Vardharadane, very interesting stories are embedded in these works of conversion. And then among such stories, the story of Neelakeshi, which you referred, Neelakeshi, is much more elaborate the Neelakeshi, a Tamil poem, is entirely devoted to exemplify the accomplishments of the heroine who defeats all her opponents. The Neelakeshi, it is lost, it is not extant in Tamil, but corroborative stories are there in Pali and Sinhalese, which you referred. And then the Neelakeshi is one of the rare works where we come across very lively dialogue, which reminds us of the unique dialogue in the Prakrit poem, Raya Paseniam, very interesting book, Willem Boley has written the story of Paisi, he has referred to the Tailak, which we also come across in Greek literature. The Jainapayam Neelakeshi was written in order to retaliate Kundalakeshi, a Buddhist work which unfortunately not extant. The original Payaam Neelakeshi, and its commentary by Samaya Divakar of Aamana Muni has been edited with English introduction by Professor Y. Chakravartin Anar in 1936. It is an important work for the comparative study of Jainism, Buddhism, and Ajivikism. We may remember the classic book by A. L. Basam, who wrote the Ajivikas, and Basam was working here in the SOAS, where we are celebrating the centenary year of SOAS, Padmanabh Jaini, and then Basam, they were working here at that period. And then Anuradapura, you referred, whether there was any traces of Jainism. Yes, we have written evidence from maybe one of the rare Pali works, where it is said that Anuradapura, there were many Jainas, Vihara, something like that, which was patronized by the king who was ruling there in the third century BC. And then you... Probably time to conclude your intervention. Yes. I'm very sorry, but thank you very much for your contribution. And now it's time to welcome Dr. Wutwen, who's coming from Leiden University. She actually did a PhD in the UK in Cardiff, with Max Deg, right, with Professor Deg. And now she's post-doctoral fellow at the Leiden University Institute for Aria Studies. And she has done a fascinating work for a PhD on the figure of Ajata Shatru in both Buddhist and Jaina sources. And she is now revising this for publication, and she will present a paper today. And the title that is actually on this program is has to be updated. The proper title is the Buddhist Salvation of Ajata Shatru and the Jaina Non-Salvation of Kunika. Yes. Good morning, everyone. I hope the handouts may be enough because I only prepared 50 copies. So if you don't get a handout, could you please share with the person sitting next to you? And then that will be great. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. The paper I'm presenting, the title of the paper I'm presenting today is the Buddhist Salvation of Ajata Shatru and the Jaina Non-Salvation of Kunika. So if you've got a handout, I just start to read it. As a prominent contemporary of both Buddha and Mahavira, the Mughalton king, Ajata Shatru, known to the Jains as Kunika, is widely featured in both Buddhist and Jain literature. Both Buddhists and the Jainists claimed him to be a supporter of their own religions. Both shared a common narrative that Ajata Shatru Kunika, for the sake of the throne, imprisons his father, Bimbisara Shlennika, and consequently causes his death. Although the Buddhists spoke of Ajata Shatru's patricide and the Jainists spoke of Kunika's suicide, as Joseph Dehli puts it, both traditions agree that Kunika usurped the throne of Mughalton, whereby he at least toyed with the thought of murdering his father and that Shlennika perished in prison. The parallelism between Buddhists and the Jain accounts of Ajata Shatru Kunika's conflict with his father has received much attention in previous studies. Rather less known and less explored, however, is a fact that Buddhists and the Jains held considerably different opinions on the salvation of Ajata Shatru Kunika, if we construct the term salvation in his ultimate sense referring to the liberation from samsara. Jains sources tell us nothing further than that Kunika is killed by a cave deity and falls into hell, whereas a number of Buddhist texts show that, although Ajata Shatru, due to his patricide, will go to hell in his next life, he will subsequently be released from hell and will eventually attain Prenumana after becoming a political putter or a perfectly awakened putter. This paper seeks to understand how differently Buddhists and the Jain storytellers in ancient India dealt with Ajata Shatru Kunika's sin or his bad karma and his salvation, and what we can learn from such differences about Buddhists and the Jains themselves, especially regarding their academic views and the sociological emphasis. I will first give an outline of the Indian Buddhist narrative cycle of the salvation of Ajata Shatru. Then I will turn to Jains sources discussing accounts of Kunika's remorse over causing the death of his father and the accounts of his death and descent into hell. Finally, through comparing Buddhist and Jain story traditions, I will comment on the different roles Ajata Shatru Kunika plays in Buddhist and Jain sociological discourses. So let's begin with the Indian Buddhist narrative cycle of the salvation of Ajata Shatru. The image of Ajata Shatru that emerges from Indian Buddhist literature is a paradigmatic embodiment of both violence and virtue. He is both infamous as a committer of patricide, one of the five Alan Taylor crimes in intending immediate karmic result of descending to hell in the next life and famous as a model of Buddhist faith. As Professor Phyllis Granov aptly puts it, Ajata Shatru is both vilified as the ultimate sinner who killed his father on the conspired against the Buddha and glorified as the greatest devotee of the Buddha whose faith in the Buddha was so extraordinary that his minister had to prevent him from dying with grief on hearing the news of the Buddha's death. There is a very rich body of Buddhist literature, including both narrative and non-narrative sources dealing at various levels of detail with Ajata Shatru's repentance, conversion, field rebus and slash all his eventually breaching. As well as narrative sources are concerned, the Indian Buddhist narrative cycle of the salvation of Ajata Shatru basically comprises of five sub-cycles, including first, the story of his repentance and the conversion by the Buddha, that is the frame story of the Shlamyapala Sutra and its adaptations. Second, stories of his repentance and the conversion by someone other than the Buddha. Third, stories of his conversion unrelated to his repentance for the patriot side. Fourth, prophecies of his future rebirth and his political Buddhahood. And fifth, prophecies of his future rebirth and his Buddhahood. I have made a detailed study of these five sub-cycles elsewhere, which is my PhD, this is submitted to Cardiff University in 2012. Below is a brief outline of the first, the fourth and fifth sub-cycles, which are the most relevant to the purpose of comparison with the general accounts of Kunika's remorse over causing the death of his father and his next rebirth. Regarding the first sub-cycle, the Shlamyapala Sutra is perhaps the best known canonical Buddhist text dealing with the salvation of Ajata Shatru, in which the story of his visit to the Buddha serves as a narrative frame enclosing a sermon on the benefits of being of being an ascetic. The latter part, half of the story which follows the Buddha's sermon narrates Ajata Shatru's confession of his patriot side and his conversion into a Buddhist upasaka by taking refuge in the three jewels. The Shlamyapala Sutra has come down to us in multiple versions. Almost all the extended versions, except the Chinese version, agree that, although Ajata Shatru is brought to faith by the Buddha through a sermon, he is nonetheless hindered by his own patriot side from making substantial spiritual progress during the sermon. As for the fourth sub-cycle, prophecies of Ajata Shatru's future rebirth and his particular Buddhahood can be found at least in four Buddhist texts. So the four includes the following. In his commentary on the Shlamyapala Sutra, Buddha also tells us that as a result of visiting the Buddha and hearing the Buddha's sermon, Ajata Shatru will be released after staying in hell for 60,000 years and will finally attain Prinibbana as a pakek Buddha. Well, the Shlamyapala Sutra said that Ajata Shatru is hindered by his patriot side from attending the tamai during the visit. Purgasa shows that this hindrance is only temporary and that the visit itself has long-reaching benefits. By doing so, Purgasa shifts the emphasis from the obstacle caused by Ajata Shatru's bad karma to the salivific power of the Buddha and of his teaching. Bossa Sutra connected in the Chinese Agotallika Gama and the Chinese scripture on King Ajata Shatru's inquiry into the five most heinous crimes predict Ajata Shatru's short stay in hell, subsequent release from there, continuous rebirth in heaven and eventual Buddhahood. In both texts, his failed heavenly rebirth and awakening are said to be the karmic rewards for his faith in the Buddha and in the Buddhist Dharma in this life. Lastly, the Ajata Shatru's repeated whole Havana story of Ajata Shatru's malice towards his father, that is the part of 45 of Kshemundra's Bodhisattva Havana Karatha, shows that after torturing him beside death in prison, Ajata Shatru feels remorseful and seeks aid from the Buddha, who then preaches to him a sermon on karma. The Buddha predicts that if Ajata Shatru abandons evil and associates himself with the virtues, his sin will be extinguished in due time and that he will finally become a Buddha. As for the fifth sub-cycle, prophecies of Ajata Shatru's failed rebirth and his eventual Buddhahood can be found at least in three Buddhist texts, namely, the Ajata Shatru called Kriya in Sutra, which is Mahayana's text and the Chinese scripture on the prediction of future Buddhahood of King Ajata Shatru and the chapter on prediction of future Buddhahood of King Ajata Shatru of the scripture on the Tani for protecting state rulers. Among these three texts, the Ajata Shatru called Kriya, Vinodana centers on how the Bodhisattva Manjushri through expounding the emptiness of all phenomenon, relieves Ajata Shatru of his remorse, called Kriya, over the patricide. The text shows that after hearing Manjushri's exposition of emptiness, Ajata Shatru is almost entirely absorbed from the bad calamity consequence of his patricide. The text predicts that he will stay in hell only for a very short time, where I'm feeling no pain there and that after emerging from hell, he will be reborn first in heaven, then as a Bodhisattva and finally as a Buddha. Lastly, in the Chinese scripture on the Tani for protecting state rulers, the Buddha assures Ajata Shatru that due to his confession and repentance, he will quickly get out of hell after falling into it and will then be reborn in the Tushita heaven where he will receive from might layer a prophecy of Buddhahood. So the outline above gives a basic picture of the three most important sub-cycles of the stories of the salvation of Ajata Shatru in Indian Buddhism. In the first sub-cycle, most of the extant versions of the Shlamyapala Sutra, except the Chinese version, presents an overall balanced picture. On the one hand, Ajata Shatru's confession and his taking refuge demonstrate the Buddha's personal charisma and the great impact of the Buddha's teaching. On the other hand, Ajata Shatru's failure to make substantial spiritual progress during his visit to the Buddha as a result of his own patricide evences the inescapability of karmic effects. The situation is rather different in the fourth and fifth sub-cycles which predict his future political Buddhahood or Buddhahood. And in these two sub-cycles, through granting ultimate awakening and liberation to this seemingly unceivable criminal, the Buddhist authors of these prophecies demonstrated the temporary nature of karmic obstacle to spiritual growth, the salvific power of the Buddha or Bodhisattva such as Manjushri, the efficacy of Bodhisattva and the overwhelmingly positive nature of Buddhist sociology. In contrast to those Buddhists who claimed Ajata Shatru's failure to liberation, the Jains seems to have shown no interest in granting ultimate liberation to Kunika. So let us now look at what the Jainists says about Kunika's reaction to his father's death and his next rebirth. In describing Kunika's grave and guilt over the death of his father, Jain's storytellers made no attempt to have his sense of guilt resolved through religious measures. They simply told us that Kunika gradually relives himself of sorrow through performing worldly funeral rites for offering oblations to his dead father, Shennanika, and through relocating his residence from Lajagriha to Tempa without mentioning the involvement of any religious figure. For instance, the Nilea Valiyao, the ace Wupanga of the Svalambala Canal, a text in his current form dating perhaps through sometime between 350 to 500 CE, narrates Kunika's reaction to Shennanika's death in prison as follows. You can find the quoted text at the end of the paper, so here I just read my translation. Then Prince Kunika came to the prison. He saw Kinshnanika falling on the ground, breathless, motionless, devoid of life. Overwhelmed by the great sorrow for his father, he fell flat on the ground with a crash, like an excellent Tempak tree cut down by an axe. Then in a short while, when Prince Kunika recovered, crying, lamenting, grieving, and willing, he said, Alice, I'm wretched, devoid of merit, and have made no merit. By me, and even did, was done, putting in chains Kinshnanika, who is dear, Godlike, attached to me with boundaries, love, and affection. Kinshnanika died in my very presence. Surrounded by lots, city guards up to, because this is just a kind of cliche, up to the treaty keepers, crying, lamenting, grieving, and willing, with great pomp, honor, and assembly of citizens, Kunika removed the dead body of Kinshnanika. He performed many worldly funeral rites. After that, Prince Kunika was overcome by the great suffering of mental depression. At one time, surrounded by his harem and the dependence with his vessels, utensils, and other house called Caraphernia, he left Elijah and went to the city of Champa. There, provided with an extensive range of worldly enjoyments, he seemed to feel little sorrow. A brief and somewhat different accounts of Kunika's grave over the death of Kinshnanika is found in the Avasaya-Chulni, Avasaya-Kachulni, attributed to Jinnadasa, a proclit prose commentary on the versified of Avasaya-Nichuti, Avasaya-Nichuti, which itself is a commentary on the canonical Avasaya-Kasuta, Sudra, one of the four Mula Sudras of the Svalambara Canal. So the Jinnadasa Avasaya-Kachulni reads, seeing Shnanika dead in the prison, Kunika became even more distressed. Then, having cremated Shnanika, he went home. Having given up the concern for the burden of kingship, he started thinking about Shnanika only. His minister thought the king is lost, having engraved an edict on a copper plate and made it look old. They presented the plate to the king, saying, that should it be done for a father. He is to be saved through the offering of rice balls. From that time on, the richer of offering rice balls to one's father became established. Thus, in the course of time, Kunika became free of grave. But again, when he saw an assembly hope down into his father with the same cultures and objects of enjoyment, he fell distressed. And hence, he left Lajagriha and moved to the Tempa, made the Tempa the place of his royal residence. In the Avasaya-Kachulni tea, or Avasaya-Kachulika, written by Haripadala, which is a mixed-proclaimed Sanskrit prose commentaries on the Avasaya-Kachulni 2D, gives basically the same account with only minor differences in wording. In his Tlisha-Tlisha-Laka-Plusha-Chalida, Hemachandla retells this episode in a way similar to the accounts in the Avasaya-Kachulni 2Ds. And Hemachandla also, like Jinadadasa and Haripadala, Hemachandla also speaks of Kunika's offering of rice balls to Shananika, his experience of re-stimulation of sadness upon seeing the cultures and sates used by Shananika and his consequent relocation from Lajagriha to Tempa. In the Akayanaka-Malikasha-Vriti, written by Amla Deva, in the 12th century, a proclamation of verse commentaries on the Akayanaka-Malikasha, written by the Hemachandla in the 11th century. We find another version of this episode in which Kunika is depicted as initially blaming himself for the death of Shananika, and later gradually giving up grave. So Amla Deva's Vriti reads, King Kunika saw this situation, that is Shananika's death in the prison, and was afflicted with remorse. His mind was tormented by grave over the death of his father, he lamented in various ways. Because the lamentation is very long, I just skip it, it's kind of just like a same praise, same eulogy for Shananika's various virtues. So let's turn to the next page, the last paragraph of this quotation. In this way, King Kunika, whose whole body was overwhelmed with the unbearable grave over his father, was unable to stay there in Lajagriha. He founded the city of Tempa, and gradually relieved from grave, he became ruler of the earth, who conquered the entire tripartite world, equipping himself with a four-foot army, Kunika guarded his country. A relatively late Shpadan Baratek, the Katakosha of unknown authorship, and perhaps dating to the 15th or 16th century, also showed that Kunika is mentally overwhelmed by the loss of his father, insofar as he refuses to bathe and to take food. But like all the Jain versions we have seen above. So the Katakosha proceeds to tell us that Kunika finally overcomes his grave through non-religious means, which is moving his capital to Tempa, or through some enjoyment of worldly pleasures. The fact that Jain storytellers did not pursue further Kunika's grave and remorse over the death of his father, but opted to have such emotions resolved through non-religious means, makes them radically different from Buddhist storytellers, who, as we have seen, made sustained efforts to explore Ajat Shadlu's repentance after sinning, and proposed various Buddhist solutions to his sinful conditions. The Jains were, of course, fully aware of the sociological significance of repentance. The Shpadan Baratek's Uthala Chayana, for instance, speaks of repentance as being conducive to reducing karmic bondage. And also, as Professor Granov observed, that repentance is often highly valued in Jain's didactic story collections, which contain various narrative illustrations of the efficacy of remorse and confession in cleansing sin. Strikingly, the salvific value of repentance is not addressed in Jain's stories of Kunika. Well, the Jains did show Kunika's repentance over causing the death of his father. They did not feature this thing prominently. Not did they go a step further to explore the possibility of having Kunika's sin reduced through repentance or through any other means. The Jains did not provide any remedy for his bad karma, probably because they believed that there was no way to mitigate the bad karma Kunika has accrued from imprisoning his father with patriarchal intent. In other words, Kunika must leave out the consequences of his own misdeed. According to the Jain's story tradition, Kunika is killed by a cave deity and falls into the sixth hell. There seems to be no information on when he will be released from hell or whether he will attain liberation in the future. Accounts of Kunika's death and his descent into hell are mainly found in five post-Kanonical Shwetambara texts. Among the five, two Arjunis, or Junis, that is the proglet prose countries on the Dasa-Vaialiya-Dasha-Vaikalika Sutta, namely the Dasa-Vaialiya Juni written by Agastya Semha and the Dasa-Vaialiya Juni attributed to Jinnadasa. The other three texts are the Avashek Juni attributed to Jinnadasa, Haripadala's Avashek Briti and Hemachandla's Dlishashti Sharaka Purusha Charida. And in all these three texts, the death of Kunika occurs immediately after his war against the Kintetaka of Vaishali. And the war breaks out not long after Kunika threw his father into, Shnennika into prison, where Shnennika dies through suicide. Given this sequence, Kunika's rebirth in hell may be seen as a calamity retribution both for his military violence and for his imprisoning of his father, Shnennika, with a patriarchal intention. According to Jinn doctrine, where rival and intention to hurt or kill arises and the influence of passions, such as lust and or hatred, there is a Pavahimsa leading to the bending of bad karma. Jinn narrative literature repeatedly shows that thoughts of violence even without being manifested in bodily action still incur serious calamity consequences. In the case of Kunika, although the Jinn spoke of Shnennika's suicide instead of Kunika's patricide, they did show that Kunika at least toyed with the thought of murdering his father. That's even with the thought of patricide, Kunika finds much bad karma and has to undergo the punishment of hell. Nintina Dasa's Aveshiaka Juleni and Halipathra's Aveshiaka Viti gave basically the same accounts of Kunika's death and descent into hell. Since narrative material in Aveshiaka Juleni is usually considered to be older, I translate its account here. At that time, Kunika returns to Tempa. The swaming, which is Mahavira, stopped as a holy assembly there. Then Kunika thought, I have many elephants and horses. Now I go and ask the swaming, am I a Czech valetine or not? He went out in all pomp to the holy assembly, having venerated the swaming. Kunika said, how many Czech valetines are in the future? The swaming said, all the Czech valetines are passed away, which means there's no Czech valetines in this time cycle. And he further asked, where will I be reborn? And the swaming said, in the sixth scale, even though I'm believing, having had all the single-sense jewels made in copper, Kunika went to the Timisa Cave in all pomp. After having taken the eighth meal, the cave deity, Krita Malaka, said to Kunika, the Czech valetines were all gone, go away. Kunika did not want to leave. He fastened his riding elephant, having put his crown jewel on the head of the elephant, he went forth to strike the door of Krita Malaka. And then he was killed by Krita Malaka and died going to the sixth hell, exactly as the Mojaveira predicts. The text goes down to narrate the ascension of Kunika's San Uda'in to the throne without seeing anything more about Kunika. In his commentary on the Dasa Vayalia, Agastya Simha gives a slightly different version of this episode. So the Kunika asked Svamin, where do the Czech valetines who have not abandoned the enjoyment of central players go after finishing their lives in this world? And Svamin said, they are reborn in the seventh hell. And Kunika said, where will I be reborn? The Svamin said, in the sixth hell. And Kunika said, why am I not to be reborn in the seventh? The Svamin said, a Czech valetine goes to the seventh. And the Kunika said, am I not Czech valetine? I also have 8,400,000 elephants. The Svamin said, do you have the jurors of a Czech valetine? And having had the artificial jurors made, Kunika started to accomplish his military ambition. He set out to enter the Timisa Cave and Krita Malaka stopped him saying, the 12 Czech valetines are all gone. You are going to vanish. He was not, Kunika was not held back and still stayed there. And he was killed by Krita Malaka and went to the sixth hell, exactly as Mahavira predicts. So in both versions, Kunika is portrayed in a negative light. Overwhelmed by egotism, he disbelieves Mahavira's words and considers himself a Czech valetine. Eventually he is killed by Krita Malaka and goes to the sixth hell as Mahavira predicts. According to Jan Universal History, there were 12 Czech valetines altogether. 10 of them renounced their thrones to become Jan mannequins, among whom some attained the liberation and the others were reborn in heaven. The remaining two, namely Supaoma and Blamdata, due to their unrighteousness went to the seventh, that is the worst hell. And there is no mention of their ultimate liberation. In the present episode, through comparing Kunika with the two bad Czech valetines, not with the 10 good ones, Agastya Simha apparently classifies him as a villainous tyrant ending up in renaissance rather than a virtuous hero who is to attain liberation. In his Trishashti Shalaka Purusha Chalita, Hammer Chandler retails this episode in more detail. Unlike his predecessors, Hammer Chandler also keeps silent on what happens to Kunika after his descent into hell. To date, I have not found any account of Kunika's failed destiny after his life in hell in Jan literature. Well, this does not mean that such account has never been composed. It does seem that the Jans in general were little concerned with whether Kunika can attain Bhoksha. By contrast, in both Svalambara and Dhygambara traditions, there are multiple accounts of Shnanyika's attainment of right view. In this life, right view, which is Samyak Dalashana, in this life, his next birth in hell and his following birth as a jina, that is the first of the 24 genus of the future next cycle of time. According to Jan doctrine, in order to attain Samyakthava, the right view, a soul must have an innate quality called pavyatava, which is the capability of attaining liberation. Not all souls have such a quality and not all the souls who have such a quality will realize their potential. Regarding a pavya soul, a capable soul, Bhadamlapa Jani says the pavyatava can be aroused, thus initiating an irreversible tending of the soul towards Moksha only when that soul encounters a particular set of outside conditions, while being itself sufficiently ready to respond to them. Such a confluence of external and internal factors may or may not ever take place. Jani goes on to clarify that here, outside conditions include, among others, encountering a jina or his image, and here in Jani teachings, whereas being internal ready means that the soul is relatively less bound and more oriented towards its own well-being. Thus, in order for its pavyatava to be activated, a soul must minimize the passions or orientating itself towards the freedom of karmic bondage, and meanwhile must experience necessary external conditions. If a soul is a pavyatava, which is incapable of attending liberation, who has no innate potential for liberation, or if a soul is pavyatava, but its dormant pavyatava simply never happens to be activated due to the lack of coordination of external and internal conditions. In either case, a soul always remains in a state of pavyatava, that is a false view of reality, and never attends pavyatava. In the case of Kunika, although the Uwavaiya, that is our Papatika, the first Uwapanga of the Shraddhan Balakannu narrates his pious journey to Mahavira Samava Salana, holy assembly, and he's receiving of Mahavira's teaching there. No Jantax, as far as I'm aware, no Jantax ever speaks of Kunika's attainment of Samakatava, or any other significant spiritual status as a result of meeting Mahavira and hearing his teachings. The Jants seem to have generally assumed Kunika to be one who is never able to overcome his Mityatava. It is unclear whether they considered him a pavyatava or a pavyatava. If they considered him a pavyatava, the reason for the failure or for activation of his pavyatava must lie in his strong passions, as can be seen from his desire for the Chakravartin status and from his military ambition. And these strong passions make him simply unready or inadequate to respond, even under the optimal external conditions of direct contact with the Mahavira and hearing his teachings. So to conclude, while both the Buddhists and the Jants told stories about how Ajatashatru Kunika imprisons his father and consequently causes his death, only the Buddhists provided religious solutions to Ajatashatru's sinful condition. The Jants, as seen from extensive sources, made no attempt to tackle Kunika's bad karma from religious perspectives and did not pursue the theme of his remorse over the death of his father in much detail. The Buddhists and the Jants actually ascribed to Ajatashatru Kunika in entirely different roles in the astrological discourses. In the Buddhist traditions, as one guilty of the Alantala crime of patriotism, Ajatashatru represents one of the worst case scenarios in Indian Buddhist ethics. Some Buddhists, for example, the authors of the various versions of the Shlamyapala Sutra, stressed the hindrance of Ajatashatru's patriotism to his spiritual progress. Some other Buddhists, which is, for example, those who told or retold the prophecies of his failed awakening. So such calumical hindrance has been only temporary and more overused his extremely miserable moral thus calumical status as a device to demonstrate the scientific power of the Buddha or Mandushli and the efficacy of the Buddhist Dharma. In these prophecies, Ajatashatru attends liberation not because of his own virtue, but because of the divine intervention of the Buddha or Mandushli and of the Buddhist Dharma. In Jain tradition, Kunika does not appear as a paradigmatic sinner as Ajatashatru does in Buddhism. He accrues bad karma chiefly from his misdeed of imprisoning his father with a patriarchal intent and from his military violence. The Jains did not propose any remedy for his bad karma, which implies that in the Jain's view, karma consequences cannot be changed by any means. There seems to be no mention of Kunika's attainment of any spiritual status in canonical or post-canonical Jain sources. And there is little, if any, almost no information on what happens to him after his next life in hell. The Jains portrayed Kunika, as I understand, essentially as a spiritual inert character who is unable to overcome his meaty atava even under the optimal, the best conditions of meaty mojaveera and hearing Jain teachings. In stark contrast to the Buddhists who focused on the intervention of external factors such as Buddha, Mandushli, and the Buddhist Dharma, the Jains placed primary emphasis on the soul's own qualities, inherent qualities, such as pavyatava or pavyatava and to what degree it is sticky with passions. Thank you. Thank you very much for this extremely interesting paper. There is a lot of material there, very rich communication, and yeah, you can see that your article is ready, basically. I would have myself a lot of questions, but I probably will open the floor first because otherwise I will ask too many. So if there is any question, we are a bit late, so maybe we can take three questions and try to be not too much delayed. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you, yeah, thank you, yeah. Thanks. Luis, and then Samani. Yeah. Well, there is no mention about Ajat Shadlou's aspiration to become a chakravartite in the Buddhist context, and also in the Jain context, I didn't mention it because this whole story actually told within the Jain universal history, like in the whole Jain universal history, the narrative framework within this big framework, there are 12 chakravartites and 10 of them are good chakravartites. And the point I want to address is that here, the Mahavira only mentioned that too, which imply that it goes to hell. And the reason why that goes to hell because they are full of passions and unrighteousness. So here, the story seems to align the two bad chakravartites in comparison with Kunika rather than mentioning the other 10. So the point here is that the whole image of him in this story context is very negative and implying that he's such a unrighteous figure and also full of passions, which become a hindrance for him to attain liberation. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yes, yes. Yes, he actually, actually the first draft I sent to Professor Peter Flugela contains the paragraph on the untentability of the lifetime lifespan of one's living in, stay in the hell. But if you look at Christy Vili, and she has written an article on Shnennika's story, and she discussed that in Shivanambala traditions, the person's lifespan, which is Aayu, a person's lifespan of staying in hell cannot be changed. But in Degangbala tradition, there are some kind of flexibility there. The overall picture is that on the Buddhist side, we can see there are different strategies of shortening, adjusting, Ajad Shadrush staying in hell, try to make him quickly get out of hell or something. But on the Jain side, the mechanism of the working of the Kalama, and because in the Jain context, lifespan of one's staying in hell is called Aayu-Kalama, Nalaka-Aayu-Kalama, that is once it bound, it cannot be changed. So it's already fixed there. So the mechanism, the working of the Kalama, which the differences in the working of the Kalama causes there are different ways of handling the Ajad Shadrush's existence in hell, which is on the Buddhist side, it is possible to adjust and we can see many strategies to adjust, but on the Jain side, within the Shivanambala tradition, there's no way to adjust. Yeah, okay. Yeah, as far as I remember, Christy Vili, she discussed in the Shivanambala tradition, it's more rigid, but in the Dighambala tradition, there are some flexibility as shown in the stories of Shinenika. Okay, so this exploration of narratives varies very interesting doctrinal issues, and I'm sure we could discuss more, but we will try to stick to time.