Insects in Ancient Jain Literature and Culture

Summary

K.G. Sheshadri’s survey collects references to insects scattered throughout ancient Jain and Indian literature in order to highlight the rich entomological knowledge preserved by the Jain tradition. The author begins by noting that insects have fascinated humanity since Vedic times; the Ṛgveda lists ants, bees and grasshoppers, while the Atharvaveda provides an even broader catalogue, mentioning species such as the silkworm (Kośakāraṇa), wild gnats, mosquitoes and glowworms. Other Vedic texts—Brāhmaṇas, Upaniṣads and the Taittirīya Āraṇyaka—enumerate diverse bees and flies, and the Valmiki Rāmāyaṇa and Amarakośa refer to silkworms, wild bees, moths, ants and other insects. Classical Sanskrit literature is equally rich: Kālidāsa’s poems and dramas name more than eighteen insects, including the bee (Bhramara), black bee (Śāraṅga), lac insect (Lākṣa), centipedes, locusts and termites; his works vividly describe swarms of locusts, the buzzing of bees and the courtship of insects. Medical texts such as the Suśruta Saṃhitā and its commentary by Ḍalhaṇa not only quote an ancient treatise on insects (Kīṭakalpa) attributed to Dhanvantari but also classify six kinds of ants, flies and mosquitoes, eight types of hornets, sixteen types of centipedes and nearly thirty varieties of scorpions, four classes of spiders and twelve species of leeches. These passages reveal a systematic interest in the diversity, behaviour and medicinal significance of insects. The paper then turns to Jain canonical literature. The Jaina Agamas (Ācāras, Chedas, Mūlas and their commentaries) describe insects according to the number of senses they possess. The Tattvārthādhigamasūtra and Prajñāpanā divide insects into two‑sensed, three‑sensed and four‑sensed classes. Two‑sensed insects include white ants, worms without legs, leeches and saliva insects; three‑sensed insects include kunthu, black ants, moths, cotton insects, wood‑eaters and grain insects; four‑sensed beings include various bees, scorpions, fleas and bugs. The article lists long catalogues of insect names preserved in Jain texts, such as Jhingura (cockroach), Bāhuka (moth), Indrakāyika, Laṅghuka, Kusthīlavala, Piśuka (flea), Āḍhyakīṭa, Gokīṭa (cow ear bug) and numerous others. Manuscripts like the Bhagavatī Sūtra and its commentaries enumerate different bees (small bee, big bee, honey bee, black bee), while the Paumacariya (Jain version of the Rāmāyaṇa) and the Tamil epic Jīvaka‑cintāmaṇi recount tales of summoning bees by speaking their language. Jain poets such as Nāgacandra and Nemicandra describe crickets, hive‑building honey bees and ant colonies in their epics. Special treatises, including Pipilīkalakṣaṇa, Pipilīkāvicārā and Pipilīkājñāna, deal solely with ant behaviour and omens, and the Khagendra‑manidarpana by Mangarasa analyses the poisons of fourteen classes of insects and thirteen types of scorpions. These sources demonstrate that Jain scholars and poets observed insects closely, recorded their habits, and sometimes linked them to omens or medicinal uses. The survey concludes that ancient Jain literature constitutes a largely untapped reservoir of entomological information. While scholars have begun to note the references to insects in the Ācāras, Upāṅgas and various commentaries, much work remains to be done to classify, interpret and evaluate these observations in modern scientific terms. Sheshadri advocates a systematic study of Jain scriptures, kavyas, scientific treatises and folklore to create a more complete picture of Jain entomology. By combining these sources, researchers could uncover traditional knowledge of insect diversity, behaviour, pathology and ethno‑medicinal uses.