Translation: Arguments for Moksa of Women
#1 [*pp. 1-75, p. 76, lines 1-21][1]
Now the Digambara enters the stage:
He believes that there is no attainment of moksa for women, that the Omniscient One does not eat or drink, and that there is no possibility of moksa for a householder or a mendicant whose emblem is other [than that of nudity]. ( Yuktiprabodha, verse 21]
[Digambara:] Women, namely, those beings who have the physical sign of the human female, do not attain moksa in that very life, for their souls do not manifest that pure transformation which is called "a Perfected Being" (Siddha). The specific use of the word "dravyatah " [i.e., biologically] indicates that males who possess the female libido (bhavatah ) [and thus can be considered psychologically, female] are not inherently opposed to the attainment of moksa. [*p. 76, line 6-p. 78, line 5][2]
#2 [Question by a student:] What do you mean by a person who is biologically female or psychologically female? How are these to be
distinguished from one another? On what grounds do you maintain that a person who is biologically female may only attain five gunasthanas, but a person who is [biologically male but] psychologically female may attain [all] fourteen gunasthanas?
#3 [Digambara:] There is no [room for doubt here], since the term "veda " has been explained in both ways [namely, as both biological gender and libido]. For it has been said in the Gommatasara :[3]
When there is the rise of the male, female, or hermaphrodite libido, there is the internal (bhava) state called male, female, or hermaphrodite, respectively. But when there is the rise of the karma responsible for producing the body, then it means biological (dravya) gender. There is a direct correlation between the biological gender and libido in most cases, but there are cases where the two may differ. [verse 259]
The three libidos (veda), namely, the male, the female, and the hermaphrodite, are produced by the coming into fruition of that karmic variety of minor passions, comprised under the rubric of caritramohaniyakarma , that prevent proper conduct.[4] The psychological transformation thus derived designates that person as [psychologically male, female, or hermaphrodite]. Similarly, the biological gender of a person, whether male, female, or hermaphrodite, is a particular physical transformation of the material that forms the body. This happens as a result of the fruition of several specific types of karmas, notably the nirmana [general bodily shape] and angopanga [primary and secondary signs, such as male and female], which are comprised under the category called the nama-karma.
#4 Thus, a person can be called psychologically male (bhavapurusa ) when his mind is overcome by that sexual desire which is desirous of a woman due to the arising (udaya) of the male libido (pumveda). Similarly, a person can be called psychologically female (bhavastri ) when that person is overcome by that sexual desire which is desirous of a man due to the arising of the female libido (striveda). In the same manner, when there is the sexual desire for both due to the arising of the third type of libido (napumsakaveda), and there is the [simultaneous] sexual desire for both [males and females], that person is said to be psychologically hermaphrodite (bhavanapumsaka ).
#5 Similarly, a person is called biologically male (dravyapurusa ) when a soul acquires a body marked by such male signs as mustache, beard, and male member as a result of the fruition of pumveda-mohaniya and the nirmana and angopanga nama-karmas; this is a biological gender that remains the same from the first moment of one's given existence to the last moment of that life. A person is called biologically female (dravyastri ) when
a soul acquires a body marked by such female signs as hairless face, breasts, and the birth canal, as a result of the fruition of the striveda-mohaniya and the nirmana and angopanga nama-karmas; this is a biological gender that remains the same from the first moment of one's given existence to the last moment of that life. A person is called biologically hermaphrodite (dravyanapumsaka ) when a soul acquires a body marked by a gender that is different from both [male and female] as a result of the fruition of the napumsakaveda and the nirmana and angopanga nama-karmas; this is a biological gender that remains the same from the first moment of one's given existence to the last moment of that life.
#6 These biological and psychological differences for the most part remain in exact correlation to each other among the gods, hell beings, and all the animals and human beings of the realm of pleasure (bhogabhumi) [i.e., the libido corresponds to the biological gender].[5] But in other places, namely among those human and animal beings found in the realm of action [karmabhumi, which includes our earth], the biological gender and the libido can be either identical or different. Thus the following combinations are possible: the biologically male person can be either psychologically male, female, or hermaphrodite; the biologically female person can be either psychologically male, female, or hermaphrodite; the biologically hermaphrodite person can be either psychologically male, female, or hermaphrodite. Thus there is no invariable correspondence between the biological gender and the libido with reference to men and women [and the hermaphrodite] in the karmabhumi.
It has been said in the holy scriptures that a person who is biologically male may have all tree types of libidos, until such time as he eliminates all of them by reaching the [ninth gunasthana called] anivrttikarana [via the process of climbing the ladder of destruction (ksapaka-sreni ) of the libido and other passions:]
In the same manner, those [males] who are subject to the fruition of the other [female and hermaphrodite libidos] may also attain moksa if they continue in meditation. [Prakrta-Siddhabhakti , 6; see #8 below]
This verse shows the possibility [that a male mendicant may experience even female or hermaphrodite libidos at the commencement of the climbing of the ladder of destruction]. [*p. 79, line 11-p. 8, line 8][6]
#7 [Clarification sought by a student: As I understand it, this text that you quoted implies that even a female and a hermaphrodite may also attain moksa in the same manner as do men.] That being the case, a female must also be able to attain fourteen [gunasthanas]. [Given your stated view that women do not attain moksa,] how then can this be so?
#8 [Digambara:] O lotus [i.e., best] among those who aspire for moksa and who are desirous of knowing the true doctrine! You have indeed asked a very pertinent question. In this particular context [i.e., in the passage from the scripture quoted above], the words "may also attain (sijjhanti) the fourteen gunasthanas" were spoken with reference to a person who was [biologically male but] psychologically female. But a person who is biologically female may only attain the first five gunasthanas, beginning with the first, mithyadrsti [wrong views].
If it is asked how this can be so, we say that the occurrence of the term "manusyini"[7] [lit., female of the human species] in the scripture [describing those who can have fourteen gunasthanas] is applied to a person who is biologically male but who experiences female libido when he begins to climb the ladder [of destruction, i.e., the eighth gunasthana]. As has been said in the Siddhabhakti :
Those men who have climbed the ladder of destruction while experiencing male libido will attain to Siddhahood if they maintain their meditation. The same is true of those [men] who experience the other two libidos as well.
[*p. 81, line 13-p. 83, line 5] Similarly, [in the following text too the words "woman" and "hermaphrodite" should be understood to refer to males who experience that type of libido]:
In one moment, twenty persons with hermaphrodite libido, forty with female libido, and forty-eight with male libido will attain Siddhahood.[8] [?]
The meaning of this verse becomes consistent only if we take it refer [to persons who are biologically males, for how could one account for such a large number of biological hermaphrodites who in reality constitute only a negligible percentage of humanity]? We therefore maintain that there is no moksa possible for those persons who are biologically female, because crookedness (kautilya) is their very nature.[9] [*p. 83, lines 7-9] As it is often said in the world:
Falsehood, rashness, deceitfulness, foolishness, excessive greed, lack of affection, and pitilessness are the innate faults of women. [?]
#9 [Svetambara:] This argument of yours [that these faults are to be found in a person who is biologically female] is of no consequence, since they can also be found with equal frequency in males who are psychologically females as well. And yet you maintain that even though faults are found in such men, they are nevertheless worthy of attaining moksa in that very life. [*p. 83, line 12-p. 84, line 6]
#10 [Digambara:] This should not be said, for although crookedness may be common to both the biologically female and [male but] psychologically female, the biologically female is distinguished [from a male having female libido] by the fact that she has an impure body, as is evident by the flow of [menstrual] blood each month. For that very reason it has been said in the Sutraprabhrta by [the Digambara] acarya Kundakunda:
Women have no purity of mind; by nature they are fickle. They have monthly [menstrual] flows. [Therefore] there is no meditation for them free from anxiety. [25] [See Chapter I, #8.]
Elsewhere too it has been said:
The genitals of a woman, flowing [with blood] and wet with urine, are like the oozing tip of an elephant's trunk. Alas, this despicable form has been made much of by certain distinguished poets![10] [Bhartrhari-Satakatrayam , iii, 21cd]
#11 Similarly, women are excessively bashful. As is said in the Gommatasara :
She is called stri ["woman," as derived from the root str , to cover] because she is herself covered with blemishes and covers others [i.e., men] with the same. Since it is her very nature to cover over, she is called stri. [Jivakanda , verse 274] [*p. 84, lines 10-11]
This being the case, women by their very nature are prone to guileful crookedness. How can they engage in any [mendicant] conduct when their very nature is contrary to moksa?. . . And in the absence of mendicant conduct, whence can there be kevalajnana or moksa [in that very life]? [*p. 84, lines 12-13]
#12 Moreover, it is said in the scriptures that on account of the constant flow of the menstrual blood, various types of minute beings are generated in the genitals of women; this also occurs on other parts of her body, such as her breasts. For this reason, women suffer from constant itching caused by these beings [which does not allow] them ever to have any cessation of sexual desire. Harm also occurs to those minute beings due to the destruction brought upon them. How therefore can a woman assume the mahavratas [of a mendicant when she cannot be totally free from sexual desire or causing injury to living beings]? As has been said by Kundakunda in the Sutraprabhrta :
In the genital organs of women, in between their breasts, in their navels, and in the armpits, it is said [in the scriptures that] there are very subtle living beings. How can there be the mendicant ordination (pravrajya) for them? [24] [See Chapter I, #7.]
#13 [Student:] If indeed mendicant initiation is not allowed for women, then how do you explain the fact that they are administered the five mahavratas at the time of their initiation as nuns [just as are male mendicants]?[11]
#14 [Digambara:] True, the mahavratas are administered to nuns, but only conventionally to indicate that they belong to the holy family [of mendicants]-that is, it is a symbolic act. The requisites of a monk, such as the peacock broom and water gourd, are also given to her as a symbol of that status. But in fact there is no attainment by a nun of the fruits accruing from the assumption of the mahavratas, such as the overlordship of the gods [in the next life, a status that is said to be possible for male mendicants].[12] If indeed the vows a nun assumed were truly mahavratas, then she should be able to attain that status too; but this is not the case. Hence, her vows are not the true mahavratas [of the monks]. If indeed they were truly the mahavratas then the nuns should also be able to attain that status; this is the argument which destroys the position that women have mahavratas.
#15 Moreover, when the mahavratas are assumed, possessions [i.e., property] even as little as can fit on the tip of a hair must be renounced. However, because women must wear clothes, it is easy to prove that they can have no total renunciation. For that reason, [we maintain that such famous] women as Marudevi[13] and Draupadi[14] did not attain moksa [as is alleged by the Svetambaras] but attained heaven only.
#16 If it is admitted that women attain moksa, then this would lead to the [undesirable] consequence that a [Jina] image in a female form would become as worthy of worship as an image in a male form.[15]
#17 In the same way, female nudity would bring about an attitude of disgust in the world. Finally, many other faults would arise, such as the destruction of the right view (bodhi ), the demise of celibacy, and slander of the [Jaina] Teaching. Therefore, it is only proper that nuns should wear clothes, according to the rules laid down by the Arhat. [Of course, women would still not be able to attain moksa in that life,] since the wearing of clothes generates lice and their eggs, as well as beings with three sense faculties [touch, taste, and smell]. Harm would come to those beings with each step, by the acts of washing the clothes or placing them down somewhere. It follows from this that the mahavratas of the nuns are not real [mahavratas, but are so designated only as symbolic of their status]. So too would it be for the Svetambara monks [who also wear white clothes like the nuns], and this [Svetambara argument claiming the mahavrata status for the vows of nuns] would be like the loss of capital invested in order to gain profit.[16]
#18 Moreover, when nuns and other women greet a monk, a blessing is uttered by him in such words as, "Let there be meditation; let your karmas be destroyed"; they do not engage in the etiquette of mutual reverential greeting that takes place between monks. If indeed, as you believe, nuns do assume the mahavratas, then how is it that between your monks and nuns there is no mutual reverential greeting of one another according to rank [as there is between monks]? Indeed, this has been prohibited even in your scripture. As is said in the Upadesamala :
Even if a nun were initiated for a hundred years and a monk were initiated just this day, he is still worthy of being worshiped by her through such acts of respect as going forward in reverential greeting, salutation, and bowing down.[17]
#19 By this is also rejected the Svetambara belief that in the teaching of the second through the twenty-third Tirthankaras [i.e., from Ajita to Parsva] the Tirthankaras wore clothes of any color and their disciples wore [similar clothes]. [This also counters their belief that] the first and last Tirthankaras and their mendicant disciples wore white clothes of measured length and yet were considered acelaka, that is, without clothes.[18] This is because the mahavratas do not admit of any variation [as would be the case were your beliefs true].[19]
#20 Similarly, in the verse beginning with the words "acelakkuddesiya ,"[20] which lays down the rules of conduct for a monk, nudity alone is set forth [not the wearing of white clothing]. It is not proper, as has been alleged by the Svetambaras, to take the word "acelaka" in this verse as supportive of a secondary meaning [i.e., alpacelaka ("few clothes") as opposed to the literal meaning of acelaka ("no clothes")]. Such figurative meanings are inapplicable when one discusses the true nature of things [i.e., the path of moksa], especially when there is clear opposition between nudity and the wearing of clothes. [*p. 86, lines 1-3]
#21 Thus, it is clear that women are heedless, vain, filled with pride, of fickle senses, and weak. How can they be fit for moksa? As it is said in [your own] Visesavasyaka-bhasya [verse 549]:
Women are vain, full of pride, of fickle senses, and weak in body and mind. They should be taught only the minor texts and not the Purvas [e.g., the Drstivada ].[21]
It is also said elsewhere in the world [cf. Yogasastra-Svopajnavrtti , II, 105, verse 30]:
If, by some divine miracle, lightning were not to flash and the wind were not to blow, even then the minds of women would forever remain unstable.
#22 Similarly, women are not worthy of attaining to the highest state [moksa] because of their excessive sexual desire; because their birth [as a woman] is the result of heaps of demerit; and because they are unable to attain to those extraordinary states such as that of becoming a Tirthankara or cakravartin or to the supernatural powers attained by such beings. As is said in the world:
Women eat twice as much as men do and sleep four times as much; sixfold more are their activities and eight times stronger is their sexual desire. [Cf. Canakyaniti , verse 76]
The [Jaina] scriptures also say:
O Gautama, a person is born as a woman only when an unlimited amount of evil karmas comes to fruition. Know this well! [?]
#23 Even in your own tradition women are not allowed to attain certain supernatural powers (labdhis). As is said in the Labdhistotra :
Women, who are capable of attaining moksa, may still not gain those ten labdhis.
By the words "ten labdhis" in this verse we should understand the attainments given in the following verse:
The supernatural powers available to a cakravartin, a Jina, a narayana, a baladeva,[22] the power of moving in the sky, studying the Purvas , being a ganadhara, a pulaka [one of speedy gait], and an aharaka [a monk who can project an astral body]. [?]
#24 Moreover, because of the fickleness of their nature, it is impossible for women to have any [perfection] of meditation and, consequently, they cannot be reborn in the Sarvarthasiddhi, the highest of the heavenly abodes [which is attained only through meditation]. This being the case, how could it be that women would ever attain the abode of the Siddhas,[23] which is even higher than that heaven? Even should such attainment of moksa be considered possible [merely for the sake of argument], then surely the names of the places where such women attained kevalajnana or nirvana would be attested in some scriptures.[24]
#25 Similarly, the following inferences (anumana ) support our point of view:
There is no moksa for women;
because of the absence of valid proof.
[Svetambara:] Surely your reasoning is invalid, because we have such proof in the following [inference]:
There is moksa for women;
because of the absence of any deficiencies in the conditions [that lead to moksa];
as is the case with men.
[Digambara:] Your reasoning is invalid, because femininity is itself opposed to [perfect mendicant] conduct. This is due to the fact that women cannot renounce clothes, because their minds are overcome by excessive bashfulness and thus they are inherently opposed to [perfect conduct]. Similarly, as has been shown earlier, women do not totally refrain from all forms of harm (himsa), since there is the destruction of those life-forms that are born in their reproductive organs, as well as of lice and their eggs that are generated in their clothes.
#26
There is no moksa for women;
ecause they are inferior to men;
as is the case with hermaphrodites.
#27
There is no moksa for women [i.e., nuns];
because they are not reverentially greeted by men [i.e., monks];
as is the case with animals and so forth [also not greeted by men].
#28
There is no moksa for women;
because they are not reborn in the seventh hell;
as is the case with lower life-forms born of moisture.
#29
The supreme perfection of that knowledge, and so forth, that leads to moksa is not found in women;
because moksa [involves] supreme perfection;
as is the case with their inability to attain that extreme form of demerit which is capable of leading to the seventh hell or that extreme form of merit which is capable of leading to rebirth in the Sarvarthasiddhi heaven.
#30
There is no moksa for women;
because of their possessions;
as is the case with lay people.
#31
There is no absence of attachment to clothes in women [i.e., nuns];
because they deliberately pick up clothes that have fallen.
There is no lack of attachment in deliberately picking up something that has fallen;
as is the case with gold [being picked up] and so forth.[25]
#32
The holy conduct of women [i.e., nuns] is insufficient to bring about moksa;
because that conduct depends upon possessions [such as clothes];
as is the case with the conduct of laymen.
#33
The two types of holy conduct [namely, that of monks and nuns] that are alleged to lead to moksa involve nudity and the wearing of clothes, respectively, and they engender totally different results;
because those two types of holy conduct are completely contrary;
as is the case with the holy conduct of a monk and a layperson, which engender two different goals, namely moksa and heaven, and so forth, respectively.
#34
Clothes are not a means of attaining moksa;
because those who aspire to moksa are enjoined to renounce clothes;
as is the case with [the renunciation of] wrong views.
#35
Women do not attain the highest state [i.e., moksa]:
because they are unworthy of attaining any of the most exalted states;
as is the case with hermaphrodites.
#36
A female body is not conducive to moksa;
because the Three Jewels are not perfected in that biological state;
as is the case with the body of a denizen of hell.
#37
A female body is unable to destroy the karmas totally;
because the female body has been generated through the accompaniment of wrong views, the most evil [of karmas];
as is the case with the body of a denizen of hell.
#38
A woman is unable to achieve moksa, even if she experiences male libido [and thus becomes psychologically "male"];
because her biological state is incompatible [with moksa];
as is the case with animals.
#39
Women [i.e., nuns] cannot attain moksa;
because [nuns] are considered to be unfit either to admonish [monks] or to participate in such mendicant disciplinary actions as suspension [from the sangha, unlike monks] or expiations.
These and other such arguments should also be considered.
#40 The neo-Digambaras add this further point.[26] It is accepted by both [sects] that when the liberated souls arrive [instantaneously after their death] at the abode of the Siddhas [at the summit of the universe], they remain [forever] a size that is one-third that of the mass of their final physical body. Women, however, have two large holes in their earlobes (for earrings), two breasts, and genital cavities. Since such protuberances and cavities would have to be taken into account in the space points (pradesa ) occupied by the souls of [alleged] female Siddhas,[27] you [Svetambaras] may have to admit that, even in the Siddha abode, the male and female characteristics would remain. But this is contrary to scriptural authority, which says that the Siddha has the shape of a man (purusa).
#41 Similarly, according to your view, a woman may attain kevalajnana anytime after the age of eight. At that age, it would be possible for there to be sexual development of her fleshy parts and breasts, and even for such a [female] Kevalin to have menstrual periods. This being the case, people may feel disgust even toward a Kevalin [because she would menstruate. Such an undesirable consequence could be mitigated] if you had, like us Digambaras, believed that the ordinary (audarika) body of a person attaining kevalajnana invariably comes to possess a supremely pure gross [i.e., the biological] body (parama-audarika-sarira)[28] at that moment. However, since you profess that the body of a Kevalin remains the same as the gross body as it was before, you cannot escape the fault shown by us [namely, the disgust felt by the world toward a menstruating Kevalin].
#42 Moreover, if women do attain the state of a Kevalin, then we should expect to find such usages as female Kevalin, a female Siddha, a female sayoga-kevalin ["with activities," the thirteenth gunasthana], and a female ayoga-kevalin ["without activities," the fourteenth gunasthana]. But such usages are not proper.
#43 By this is also answered the Svetambara claim that the Lord Malli was female, since this would compel us either to call her a female Tirthankara or to worship her in the form of a male image, which would be inappropriate. But even leaving this argument aside, our experience does not indicate that a person [such as a woman] who is a vessel of impurity is
worthy of being worshiped as a Kevalin or that she could be considered celibate even while being touched by males—gods, titans, and men—in the course of worship [that is customarily offered to a Tirthankara at the time of birth and other auspicious (kalyanaka) occasions].
#44 [*p. 88, lines 5-7]
A woman's mere smile on her lotuslike face brings about the enslavement of the Lords of the Earth. Merely by obsession toward her a person is driven to love, fear, immorality, calamity, and folly. In association with her the entire world of beings comes under the sway of lust, anger, and hostility and loses its senses. A slut whose intentions are in this wise cruel may not attain the glories of auspicious moksa. [2.]
As long as the world remains awake by virtue of the luminous rays [i.e., words] of [the acarya] Prabhacandra [lit., Shining Moon], which reflect all existents according to the scriptures of the Digambaras, which have searched out and destroyed all faults [found in non-Digambara texts], and which are like the rays of the moonlight spreading throughout the eastern firmament, how then can one believe that a woman who is always exhausted by constant erotic indulgence may attain moksa [forsaking her assured rebirth in the heavenly abodes] unless one were to assume that the diligent protector of heavens, the god Dhana [i.e., Kubera], would not look at her lovingly and would not wed her?[29] [3]
#45 Now follows the counterstatement [of the Svetambaras].
As to what was said above, "A woman, that is, a female by biological gender, is unworthy of attaining moksa in that life," this statement stands refuted because it goes against [the Digambara's] own scriptures, which state that a manusyini [lit., a "woman"] may attain fourteen gunasthanas.
#46 It is incorrect to claim that the term "manusyini" here means a male by biological gender who is psychologically female. This is because such [experience of any kind of libido, including that of the female libido] can exist only up to the ninth gunasthana and not beyond. [*p. 88, line 12-p. 91, line 13][30]
#47 If, throughout her life, a woman will never ascend beyond the fifth gunasthana [i.e., the status of the laity] because of her afflicted nature, as [the Digambara] claims, then you must explain how it is possible that a male [i.e., a monk] who experiences female libido [striveda—and thus becomes psychologically female] may ascend past the fifth gunasthana; for surely he would be more afflicted in nature [than a woman, because of experiencing a libido that is at variance to his biological gender]?[31] [*p. 91, line 15-p. 92, line 1]
#48 [The foregoing examination] makes it clear that your [Digambara] interpretation of the word "manusyini" as meaning a male who is psychologically female is wrong. This being the case, your further claim that
this scripture was describing the former state [of that soul at the eighth gunasthana] through recourse to the descriptive style called bhutapurvanyaya is also wrong.[32] This [forced] interpretation of yours is dogmatic and shows that you are not free from bias. [*p. 92, line 2-p. 98, line 4]
#49 Nor does there exist a separate species of man that could be construed as having the nature of being biologically male but psychologically female. [*p. 98, line 5-p. 102, line 1]
#50 [Digambara:] Females by biological gender cannot attain moksa, because we have direct experience of their excessive crookedness, impurity, and bashfulness. Therefore we interpret the word "manusyini" in that text to have a secondary meaning [i.e., not an actual female but a male who is psychologically female].
#51 [Svetambara:] This is not correct. Crookedness and so forth are words that are conventionally used to describe the nature of a person. From a strictly technical point of view, what you call crookedness is derived from the passion known as maya; impurity is the result of the karma that has produced the gross body; excessive bashfulness too is derived from a variety of mohaniya-karma [and thus is only a temporary result of karma] and is not born from the nature of the soul. If these afflictions were all born from the feminine nature [as you maintain], then a male who has not yet attained samyagdarsana [the right view] would be inferior to a female who has the right view, since he has not yet destroyed the first grade of maya and the rest of the passions (kasaya).[33] Are you going to suggest that he too will not attain moksa in that life because he has excessive deceitfulness?
#52 [Digambara:] We maintain that as long as a man experiences crookedness, he may not attain moksa; rather, through various meditational processes, that crookedness and other passions can be totally eliminated in that very life by him. Then he would be able to attain moksa.
#53 [Svetambara:] Then it would be the same in the other case [of women] as well.
#54 [Digambara:] But men have the ability to bring about the destruction [of those passions], while women do not.
#55 [Svetambara:] There are no valid grounds [for your claim]; just stating your premise does not mean you have proved it. You admit that a woman has the ability both to destroy (ksaya) and to suppress (upasama) the first and second grades of passions, and since she practices such severe forms of austerities as accompany the most advanced stage of lay discipline—namely, the eleventh stage (pratima), which is allowed of a nun even by the Digambara—she may attain to a purity [of no mean order], as is perceived by us from the fact that women attain and assume the lay vows
[anuvratas, pratimas, and so forth]. [It stands to reason that] those women who have absolute excessiveness of feminine guile will not assume those vows, as would be the case as well with a person who is incapable of ever attaining moksa (abhavya).[34] It is undoubtedly difficult here to have the ability [to surpass the stage of the lay vows] and then gradually to develop the ability to overcome the third or fourth grade of the passions of maya and so forth. But you yourself accept the position that even a male who experiences female libido might be able to overcome them. If such a male could have the ability to destroy the excessive and more severe form of maya, then women [who experience a female libido] must also have a similar ability to destroy a maya that is comparatively less and mild [being consistent with her biological gender]. This can be stated in a syllogistic manner:
The excessiveness of maya generated by the third and fourth grades of passions, under discussion here, can be destroyed by women in that very life;
because that excessiveness of maya is not invariably concomitant with being congenitally a hermaphrodite [or a female];
it is the same with the excessiveness of maya produced by the first and second grades of that passion [which can be destroyed according to both schools by either hermaphrodites or by women].
The same rule will apply to the excessiveness of the remaining passions as well, namely, anger, pride, greed, bashfulness, and so forth.
#56 [Digambara:] Conditions are found in women that prevent the destruction of these two higher grades of passions [and thus prevent them from assuming the mendicant vows].
#57 [Svetambara:] If so, tell us what such a condition might be. Could it be a birth [in a given existence], such as among the gods, that prevents it? Or could it be a lack of discrimination [between good and evil], as would be the case with lower animals? Or is it rather the afflictions of their minds born of excessive sexual desire, as is the case as well with a congenital, hermaphrodite (jatikliba )?
#58 It cannot be the first alternative, since a woman is a human being [and not a god], and her physical and mental maturation is complete. It is not the second, since we perceive that women, like men, are able to engage in the religious activities that are associated with the eleventh pratima and so forth, and such discrimination is not found in animals. It is finally not the third alternative either, since there is a great difference between [a hermaphrodite who] desires both sexes [simultaneously] and [a woman who] desires only one.
#59 [Digambara:] We must ask you in this regard what it is that
determines that a congenital hermaphrodite has the ability to overcome the passions to such an extent that he may assume the partial vows of the layman (anuvrata), and yet he may not have the ability to destroy those passions [of the higher grade] that prevent him from receiving the greater vows (mahavrata) [of the mendicant]. The condition of birth and the absence of discrimination are not the reasons for this, since these reasons are eliminated by the very arguments just put forth in connection with women. In the absence of any other alternative, you must admit that the biological gender of that hermaphrodite is the determining factor [in denying him the mendicant initiation]. The same rule should apply to women also.
#60 [Svetambara:] It is not the case [that there is any comparison between a hermaphrodite and a woman]. A hermaphrodite is like an animal, which may in certain rare circumstances assume a modicum of the anuvratas through having a memory of its past lives thanks to specific temporal conditions [such as the presence of a teacher, etc.]. But even in those cases, we do not accept that the reason for his inability to ascend any higher rungs of the ladder of vows is due to his biological gender [as you Digambaras suggest]; rather, it is because of his afflicted mind, which has a consuming desire for both sexes, just as a fire rages through a city. This may be proved by perception. You certainly cannot say that this is the same in the case of women, for even in your doctrine a woman is considered to be worthy of practicing the conduct incumbent to the eleventh pratima, which is possible only to those with the highest aspirations. And you admit: too that it is proper to administer the mahavratas to a woman, albeit conventionally. For this reason it is said in [the Digambara text] Jnanarnava :
Surely, there are in this world of human beings certain women who are endowed with purity, morality, and restraint; who have become the crest jewel of their families, and who have accomplished both knowledge and veracity. [xii, 57]
And there are some women who are ornaments to this world by virtue of their chastity and magnanimity and their vows, modesty, and discrimination. [xii, 58]
Women have been censured by those men who have had enough of transmigration, who are learned in scriptures, entirely free of desires, with peace alone as their wealth, and who adhere to the vows of celibacy. But even then they have not censured women who have been the very embodiment of purity in this world, who are characterized by stainless study and conduct that is continuously maintained, and who lead a meritorious life, inspired by dispassion and passivity. [xii, 59]
#61 However, no such congenital hermaphrodite [similar to those women] has been either seen or heard of; he does not ascend the ladder of
the gunasthanas any higher [than the fifth rung], because of his inability to pacify his sexual desires. Even your own doctrine proclaims that his sexual desire is always smoldering, just as is the slow heat of a brick kiln. As is said in the Gommatasara :
There are beings who are without those libidos that are comparable to a fire of grass [the male libido, which burns swiftly], a dung heap [the female libido], and a brick oven [the hermaphrodite libido] and are thus souls who no longer experience sexual desire. Such beings attain to that perfect and infinite bliss that is produced in oneself. [Jivakanda , verse 276]
The meaning of this text is that beings who attain moksa because of the absence of these three kinds of sexual desire are endowed with the infinite bliss that is produced in oneself. [Therefore, the position of women is not the same as that of the congenital hermaphrodite.] In fact, it is perceived that women surpass men even in such good conduct as celibacy. Therefore, commenting on the verse [beginning with the words] "she covers" [chadayati , #11], the Gommatasaravrtti makes this clarification:
Even though such women as the mothers of the Tirthankaras and others who are endowed with the right view are free from these faults [described in this verse], since such women are rather rare as compared to the majority of women, it is valid to call these characteristics of women in general.
#62 The following syllogism [is therefore offered]:
The women under dispute [i.e., the nuns] are worthy of assuming the mendicant vows (mahavratas) in that very life;
because they are considered to be fit to receive those vows that lead them to the eleventh stage of the lay discipline (pratima) in that very life;
as is the case with laymen.
Our argument is not vitiated in the case of a noncongenital hermaphrodite (krtrimakliba),[35] because in our doctrine such a person is also allowed to assume the mendicant vows. In your doctrine, however, both the thing to be proved [i.e., the mahavratas for women] and the example [of the krtrimakliba] do not apply.
#63 [Digambara:] Objection. If you admit that a congenital hermaphrodite may not ascend to the higher gunasthanas because of his insatiable sex desire, then a noncongenital hermaphrodite must be subject to the same destiny also. So how would he be able to attain moksa?
#64 [Svetambara:] This is not a problem, because of the varied nature of the mental capacities of beings. For the most part, noncongenital hermaphrodites experience the male libido alone. We are unaware of any reason that would prevent the noncongenital hermaphrodite from attaining
the same status of destroying the karmas that is permitted to a male by biological gender who experiences psychologically the hermaphrodite libido. [*p. 104, lines 6-8] As for the congenital hermaphrodite, it is easy to establish the absence of the mahavratas for him due to his unworthiness to participate in the mendicant rituals [e.g., confessions] as agreed by both parties to the dispute.
#65 [Digambara:] [Even were women to assume the mendicant vows,] surely the impurity inherent in women would corrupt her mahavratas?
#66 [Svetambara:] That is not so, since that impurity would be either psychological or biological. But [the impurity] cannot be the former, because it is born of defiled states of mind in the presence of excessive passions [the first two grades of the kasayas], and these are not present [when the mahavratas are accepted].
Furthermore, is biological impurity that which is produced in the birth canal, and so forth, or through some [evil actions]? It could not be the former, because the destruction of the internal mahavratas cannot: be brought about by external impurity. This is comparable to the impurity of a monk that is brought about by such diseases as diabetes or an excess of phlegm, which occur on account of his advanced age [but which do not invariably lead to the destruction of the mahavratas]. It is not the case that monks are free from impurities, because during sickness these are bound to be present. [*p. 104, line 12-p. 105, line 3]
#67 As regards the menstrual flow in the vagina of a female and the birth and destruction of many lower forms of life therein, surely this is something that is impossible to avoid and therefore cannot be considered an impediment to her initiation as a mendicant. This is the same as the case of a monk who may also begin to bleed [due to hemorrhoids?], or the flow of phlegm when there is an excess of phlegm [due to a sinus condition], or the flow of pus due to boils; despite [those conditions, however,] that monk remains heedful in treating those illnesses in a proper manner. [*p. 105, lines 3-6]
#68 Moreover, tapeworms and so forth are born and die in the stomach of a monk as well, but that fact does not cause the destruction of his vows. In the same manner, women too should be treated equally. Otherwise, it would be impossible even to consider that women truly practice the lay vows of the eleventh pratima, because at that stage one refrains from all forms of injury (himsa), as is the case with a monk [although not from all parigraha]. [Any injury that may occur at that stage] can be compared to a monk who is walking mindfully but suddenly tramples an insect underfoot. Although injury has occurred in that case, the mendicant vows are not
broken thereby. This we have already noted above [and the same analogy holds good for a nun as well].
#69 This same rule should apply [in the following matter as well]:
The Omniscients have said that when a man is overcome by sexual passion and engages in sexual activity, he kills 900,000 minute beings [i.e., the sperm cells in the ejaculate]. One should always trust these words. [?]
In the vagina of a woman also, beings with two or more senses [i.e., able to touch, taste, etc.] are born, numbering from 100,000 to 200,000, up to a maximum of 300,000. [?]
When a man and a woman unite sexually, these beings in the vagina are destroyed, just as if a red-hot iron were inserted into a hollow piece of bamboo [filled with sesame seeds].[36] [?]
These beings are considered to be two-sensed when they are in the outer genital area. But beings who are born from the contact of the sperm and the menstrual blood may be even five-sensed [i.e., able to touch, taste, smell, hear, and see]. As has been said:
In the uterus of a woman who has been once united with a man, as many as 900,000 five-sensed human beings can be conceived at any one moment. [?]
Of these 900,000, only one or two will be successful in being born as fully developed human beings, whereas all the rest will simply perish then and there. [?] [Cf. verses quoted in the Syadvadamanjari , verse 23]
The destruction of living beings that takes place [in the vagina of a woman during menstruation] should also be treated as above [in that it too is unavoidable injury]. Women [i.e., nuns] have themselves renounced all such [sexual] activities, have refrained from encouraging others in those actions, do not support anyone who engages in such conduct, and maintain extreme skillfulness and presence of mind. Thus what was said above in the verse "citta sohi " [see #10], and so forth, should be understood in this manner.
#70 [Digambara:] Clothes are essential for women, and therefore there is no total freedom from possessions [aparigraha, leading to nudity] in their case.
#71 [Svetambara:] This is not so, because your argument does not stand up to scrutiny. Let us consider the following alternatives. Are women born with clothes [so that it would be impossible for them to abandon them]? Or are their clothes intended to protect their vow of celibacy? The first alternative is not true, since it is contradicted by perception. As for the second alternative, that which is conducive to the maintenance of vows is not a possession, as is the case with feather brooms [used by the Digambara monks]. This has been dealt with in detail before.
#72 Moreover, is the fact that women wear clothes due to the impossibility of abandoning them or because [clothes] cause the production of worms and thus destroy the vow [of ahimsa] ? The first alternative is not true, because even now we see both women who are desirous of abandoning their lives and naked female yogins who aspire to the attainment of absolute bliss.[37] It cannot therefore be believed that it is impossible for women to abandon clothes. The second alternative is also not correct, since by that argument even food would have to be considered a destroyer of vows, for worms are born in the stomach [of a mendicant] due to food that is eaten. Similarly, the assumption that a nun's clothes are a cause of attachment should be discarded by the same argument, for if the body is not a cause of attachment, then clothes are not either. [*p. 106, line 6-p. 107, line 2]
#73 Furthermore, [if women may] not receive the mahavratas, [the Digambaras] will not be able to account for the fourfold community (caturvidha-sangha ) [of Jainas, i.e., monks (sadhu), nuns (sadhvi or aryika), laymen (sravaka), laywomen (sravika )].
#74 [Digambara:] We maintain that laywomen who are advanced to the eleventh pratima stage are to be called aryikas [i.e., nuns] because they have attained to the highest status [possible for women]. The other three groups [monks, laymen, and laywomen] are of course well known.
#75 [Svetambara:] This is not so, because in the classification the brahmacarins [laymen in the seventh pratima] are not included. They are not accepted as mendicants. Although these brahmacarins are on the pratima ladder, they are nevertheless called laymen (sravaka). By the same token, the aryikas are only laywomen [despite being on the eleventh pratima]. As for their attaining the highest state, you do not accept that they attain the condition of a Kevalin. The most you admit is that they can become leaders (ganini ) of similar nuns. Not all nuns come to be referred to by the title ganini [and thus all other nuns would be excluded from any category whatsoever]. Moreover, if the aryikas were the same as the sravikas, then in the tradition of all the Tirthankaras, their separate enumeration would become untenable.
#76 [Svetambara:] As for the argument that was set forth, that women do not attain the state of sovereignty and lordship among heavenly beings, we do not accept that view. As was said by the great acarya Hemacandra, the delighter of the whole world, in the first chapter of his Nemicaritra :
Having undertaken at the end of his life the vow to fast unto death, that Monk Sankha was reborn in the Aparajita heaven [where each heavenly being is a sovereign being]. Similarly, the nuns headed by Yasomati, performing similar austerities, were born in the same Aparajita heaven [as male gods]. [?]
Similarly, in the texts entitled Prthivicandracaritra and Vijayacandracaritra , the attainment of the Sarvarthasiddhi heaven by women is attested. [*p. 107, lines 9-13]
#77 As for [the female Tirthankara] Malli, it is not the case that there was appearance of breasts in her childhood, nor when she attained the state of a Kevalin. She had received her initiation [as a nun] while still very young (balye ) and attained kevalajnana on the very day of her initiation, and therefore it would be impossible [to depict her as a fully grown woman at the time of her becoming a Kevalin].[38] Moreover, there would be a loss of decency also [in showing her breasts]; this case is similar to that of the images of the male Tirthankaras who are depicted devoid of beard, mustache, and [in the Svetambara tradition][39] the male member. [*p. 108, line 1-p. 110, line 14]
#78 [As regards the practice of reverential greetings (see #18)] it is not customary in our tradition to greet nuns according to the seniority of initiation [as it obtains between monks]. Rather, it is a rule that even on the day of his initiation into mendicancy a monk will be reverentially greeted first by a nun, even if she has been initiated for a hundred years. This is the rule and not vice versa. This is because a nun may become conceited as a result of being greeted by a monk and thus greeting in itself might become a cause of her accumulating more karmas. However, this is purely a tradition and not an absolute law, because even nuns are reverentially greeted [by monks] with such phrases as "I [greet reverentially] all the members of the mendicant community [which includes nuns]," and for that very reason eulogies of virtuous nuns are recited by monks after rising in the morning.
#79 [Svetambara:] Similarly, the adjectives [used by the Digambaras] to describe women as of little intelligence, and so forth, also do not prohibit moksa for nuns. This is so because there is no invariable concomitance between the ability to attain moksa and the ability to study the Drstivada [see #21]. Let us examine the question of women's not studying the Drstivada . Are they forbidden to study the text itself, or only its meaning [i.e., to read it in vernacular form], or both? In both of these cases, are they forbidden to study it in entirety or only in part? The latter alternative does not apply, since they are allowed a partial reading of the text of the Drstivada as well as its meaning-such as the chapter on the parisahas [the hardships to be borne with equanimity], a portion of which is extracted from the ninth Purva -or the text known as the Paryusanakalpa[40] [Mendicant Rules to Be Observed During the Rainy Season]. The other alternative [not reading at all] does not apply since it exempts such cases as that of the [uneducated] Masatusa monks. They cannot read the Drstivada
at all since they lack the intelligence [required to read it and yet attain moksa].[41]
#80 [Digambara:] The deficiency of intelligence in the case of the Masatusa monks cannot be cited as a valid example here. In the case of a nun, even if she has intelligence she is unfit to attain moksa [because she is a woman].
[Svetambara:] This is not correct. The deficiency of the Masatusa monks is not so much the lack of ability to memorize as it is the lack of intelligence to understand the text. In the world also, when somebody is said to be of little intelligence, this adjective is used to indicate his lack of intelligence [and not of memory]. Since this is the case, to say that a monk, even if he is not intelligent enough [to understand a sacred text], is worthy of attaining moksa but that a nun, in spite of her possession of that intelligence, is not worthy of it is [to make a statement reaching] the highest degree of rashness! If it is believed that [such an unintelligent] monk is worthy of moksa because he is male, then [by the same token a female too is worthy of it] because both male and female belong to the human species; humanness alone should be considered the determinant of the ability to attain moksa. In actuality, however, the distinction between the two is of no importance at all. [*p. 111, lines 8-14, to p. 113, line 1]
#81 [Svetambara:] As for the argument that the places where women have attained nirvana are not well known, this argument is set aside by such general statements as "Infinite numbers of beings attained moksa from [the holy mountains of] Satrunjaya and Raivata and so forth" [?].[42] There are also some specific places mentioned in reference to sites where nirvana was attained by such nuns as Marudevi, Rajimati, and others. Even in the case of those nuns for whom there is no specific mention of such places their situation is not different from that of monks who have attained moksa without anything being known about the places where they attained nirvana. Moreover, if a statement becomes acceptable merely because it is well known, then in Magadha, near the place called Vatagrama, there is a place called Mine of Sages; you should accept that also. Thus your argument amounts to nothing.
#82 [Svetambara:] Even the non-Jainas claim that women go to moksa, as, for example, it is said in the Bhagavad-Gita , chapter nine, verse thirty-two:
O Partha! whosoever takes refuge in me, even if they be of evil births (papayonayah), namely women, artisans, and even serfs, they too will attain the highest goal. [ix, 32][43]
#83 Now we begin the refutation of the inferences [put forth by the Digambaras]. [p. 113, line 7-p. 123, line 6][44]
#84 [Svetambara:] As for the argument that the two spiritual restraints, namely the sthavirakalpa and the jinakalpa, do not lead to the same goal, namely moksa,[45] and that therefore nuns [since they are not permitted to practice jinakalpa] may not attain moksa, this argument too is invalid. It is faulted by the fact that both these practices have moksa as their goal, and the distinction between them is merely that the mendicants who practice sthavirakalpa teach disciples and share a communal residence, whereas those who practice jinakalpa do not. In fact there is no substantial difference between the modes of restraint for monks and those for nuns. It must not be stated by the Digambaras that there is an absolute distinction between the two modes because the monk's restraint is total and the nun's restraint is partial, as it is not proper for the adherents of the doctrine of syadvada [conditional assertion] to advocate an absolute distinction between the two. Moreover, we have already established through logical means that the vows of nuns are the same as the great vows (mahavratas) of monks. What then is the use of pointless discussion?
#85 [Svetambara:] As for the alleged lack of strength in women, is this caused by the absence of a particular type of samhanana ["joint of bones"] of her body,[46] or lack of fortitude, or lack of firm adherence to their vows? [*p. 123, line 9]
Not the first alternative, because it is possible for women to possess the first samhanana, as it is said in the Avasyaka-niryukti : "The first kind of joint . . ." Hence your contention [based on your scripture that the karmabhumi women do not have the first three samhananas] is not acceptable to us.[47]
Nor the second alternative, since women's fortitude can be perceived directly in such acts as entering fire [in the non-Jaina act of climbing the funeral pyre of her husband, etc.]. As for physical prowess, that is of no use in [the context of] attaining moksa, since even men who are lame, dwarfish, or subject to extreme illness are not prevented thereby from attaining moksa. It should not be imagined [by the Digambaras] that these men also are not capable of attaining moksa,[48] for there is no fixed rule concerning their incapability. Merely having deformed limbs is not determinative in this matter, since [we believe] that moksa is possible even for those who have the samsthana ["bodily structure"] of a hunchback or a dwarf. [*p. 123, line 13-p. 124, line 6]
#86 As for the neo-Digambara objection [see #25] that [the state of the
Siddha will be] similar to that of the former state of embodiment because of the holes in the ears of women, and so forth, that is equally applicable to those men who wear earrings and therefore may have holes in their ears. [*p. 124, line 9]
#87 As for the argument that the shape of their breasts [would be retained in the state of a Siddha], this is no defect. Their case is similar to that of hunchbacked or obese men, who have similar characteristics. Moreover, the space points of the soul in the state of a Siddha are not affected by such [protuberances]. Nor is there [the alleged] impropriety of describing the woman's shape in the Siddhahood, because the same thing can be said about the shape of a man also. You cannot say that the male shape is permitted, because it is said in the Pravacanasara [ii, 80d]: "The [pure] soul . . . has no definable shape." Your point is not proved merely because [the texts say that] "the Siddhas are of the shape of men," since [the purport of the quotation] is only to exclude the shape of animals anti so forth. For this reason it is said in the Dravyasangraha-vrtti :
The shape of the Siddha is like the shape of the shadow of a man. In the shadow there is no shape that can be considered unmentionable. [verse 51, quoted in JSK Ill, p. 340]
#88 As for the argument that people may feel disgust [toward nuns who are menstruating], that too does not prevent their attaining moksa as it is similar to the case of men who suffer from unpleasant voice, awkward gaits, or who have totally deformed or hunchback bodies. This is similar to the case of those [non-Tirthankara] Kevalins who have dark complexions compared to the extraordinarily amiable bodies of the Tirthankaras; their dark complexion does not obstruct the attainment of the state of a Kevalin.
#89 As for the [Digambara] argument [that a nun cannot attain moksa] because of the flow of the [menstrual] blood (rudhirasrava ), we point out that this flow, generated by the presence of the libido (veda), is impossible in her case [when she attains Arhatship],[49] since the libidos are totally absent in that state. If such were not the case, then it would be difficult for you [the Digambara] to deny the possibility of there being a [nocturnal] discharge of semen (viryasrava ) in the case of a male [Arhat] as well. As for your contention that an Arhat is endowed with an extraordinarily pure body [i.e., free from blood, semen, urine, etc.], [we reject this and] will respond to it shortly.[50]
#90 [Svetambara:] [*p. 125, lines 1-4] Thus all our arguments are well established. We therefore present the following syllogism:
The women under dispute [i.e., the nuns] are worthy of attaining moksa in that very life;
because they are capable of undertaking specific kinds of austerities and the minor vows (anuvratas) of the layperson.
Whosoever is so [capable] is similar to the other, namely the male human being, who is admitted to be capable of attaining moksa.
Whosoever is not so [capable of keeping the lay vows] is not similar to the other [i.e., the human male].
For example, the heavenly beings [who cannot undertake any vows at all] and so forth.
#91 Furthermore:
Clothing and such other requisites of monks (sadhus) are not possessions (parigraha);
because they are conducive to the keeping of mendicant restraints;
for example, the water gourd and the peacock-feather broom [carried by the Digambara monks] or one's own body and the food [taken to sustain it].
#92
Sri Jinadharmabhupa [i.e., The King, namely, the Teaching of the Jina], the advocate of the reasons [to establish] nirvana for women, shines brightly after having defeated the thesis of his adversary, the Digambara Prabhacandra, as rendered in his two treatises,[51] whose gemlike brilliance is thereby made dim. [1]
Women are of such a [good] nature that they are not born in the seventh hell and as a rule are not inclined to take up arms in battle. They also do not take rebirths as visnus or prativisnus ,[52] who are the subjects of sinful tales, and thus are free from such miseries. Because of their virtues women are born with pure and soft bodies. Which wise man, unless his intentions are blameworthy, would not admit moksa for women, who thus carry less burden of karmas? [2]
That noble mother who at the celebration of the birth of the Tirthankara is praised by the king of the gods for her world-purifying virtues, who even in her youth does not resort even in the slightest manner to the wrong path, who is the support of compassion and meritorious deeds, who as a queen brings great happiness and incomparable glory to her Lord by her [tranquil] heart, [how could it be said that] such a beautifully pleasing woman is not worthy of attaining the greatest glory and happiness [of moksa]? [3]
For those men whose glory expands like an ocean, whose views agree with the doctrine of the Svetambaras, may this treatise be pleasant as ambrosia, bringer of the greatest happiness. Or may it be for arresting the view of the Digambaras; may it produce faith in the attainment of moksa by women endowed with the right view. [4]
Thus ends the chapter called Arguments for Moksa of Women. [p. 125, line 13]