The Problems of the Genesis of Various Schools of Jaina Sangha in the Acarya Periods

Summary

J.C. Sikdar’s article “The Problems of the Genesis of Various Schools of Jaina Saṅgha in the Ācārya Periods” tackles the complex history of Jain sectarian diversification after the initial schism between Śvetāmbara and Digambara traditions in about 79–82 CEhttps://jainqq.org/pagetext/Jain_Journal_1984_07/520075/23#:~:text=After%20the%20well,considering%20how%20various%20schools%20of. Acknowledging that various orders of monks (gacchas, gaṇas and samghas) proliferated in the centuries following Mahāvīra, Sikdar seeks to classify their origins and describe the modes by which they emergedhttps://jainqq.org/pagetext/Jain_Journal_1984_07/520075/23#:~:text=inquiry%2C%20at%20the%20natural%20starting,which%20come%20in%20our%20observation. He proposes two criteria: a religious criterion based on continuity of earlier doctrine and a geographical criterion reflecting each school’s original habitathttps://jainqq.org/pagetext/Jain_Journal_1984_07/520075/23#:~:text=classification%20of%20various%20Jaina%20schools,First%2C%20Jaina%20schools1. On the religious axis, he identifies: (1) schools that carried on the traditions of earlier orders (e.g., Nirgrantha Gaccha, Vata Gaccha and Tapa Gaccha for Śvetāmbaras; Śvetapāṭa Mahāśramaṇa Saṃgha and Mūla Saṃgha for Digambaras)https://jainqq.org/pagetext/Jain_Journal_1984_07/520075/23#:~:text=thoughts%20and%20ideas%20of%20the,tradition%20of%20the%20earlier%20Samghas; (2) schools affiliated to earlier orders by internal evolution; (3) groups loosely related through external influences; and (4) schools that appear unrelated to any predecessorhttps://jainqq.org/pagetext/Jain_Journal_1984_07/520075/24#:~:text=The%20fourth%20group%20consists%20of,by%20any%20tie%2C%20however%2C%20tenuous. The geographical axis subdivides schools whose original home lay wholly within the territory of an earlier school, within its expanded range, partly outside it or entirely on virgin soilhttps://jainqq.org/pagetext/Jain_Journal_1984_07/520075/24#:~:text=On%20the%20geographical%20criterion%2C%20we,the%20area%2C%20which%20that%20earlier. By combining these criteria, Sikdar arranges Jain communities into a continuum. At one end are communities so closely attached to older schools that they seem like the “dead trunks” of those traditions, while at the other are apparently independent groupshttps://jainqq.org/pagetext/Jain_Journal_1984_07/520075/25#:~:text=and%20to%20discern%20what%20the,making%20a%20comparative%20study%20of. However, he stresses that truly unrelated schools are rarehttps://jainqq.org/pagetext/Jain_Journal_1984_07/520075/25#:~:text=We%20may%20observe%20that%20the,degree%20are%20in%20a%20minority; most emerged through affiliation or secession. He observes that the emergence of independent schools—through mutation of earlier communities—became obsolete once Jainism expanded socially and geographicallyhttps://jainqq.org/pagetext/Jain_Journal_1984_07/520075/26. The all‑India spread of Jain laity and monastic orders created a network that prevented new missions from arising autonomously; instead, later movements derived from existing schoolshttps://jainqq.org/pagetext/Jain_Journal_1984_07/520075/26. Sikdar analyses the social dynamics behind secession. He describes how a dominant minority of ācāryas may lose creative power and resort to imposing authority, while the mass of monks and lay followers feel alienatedhttps://jainqq.org/pagetext/Jain_Journal_1984_07/520075/27#:~:text=minority%20of%20Acaryas21%20and%20an,act%20of%20secession%2C%20at%20length. When repression fails, dissident monks secede and form a new orderhttps://jainqq.org/pagetext/Jain_Journal_1984_07/520075/27#:~:text=common%20monks%20and%20laities%20to,belonging%20to%20the%20sister%20Samghas. This process explains the birth of related schools like the Lonkā Gaccha and the Sthānakavāsī and Terāpanthin sectshttps://jainqq.org/pagetext/Jain_Journal_1984_07/520075/27. Sikdar suggests that this “secession model” became the dominant mode of genesis in the medieval and modern periods, whereas early schools like Drāviḍa Saṃgha or Yapaniya Saṃgha may have arisen by mutationhttps://jainqq.org/pagetext/Jain_Journal_1984_07/520075/27. He notes that the article is a preliminary survey and promises further analysis of how the Śvetāmbara and Digambara sects crystallisedhttps://jainqq.org/pagetext/Jain_Journal_1984_07/520075/28#:~:text=,Digambara%20and%20Svetambara. The article emphasises that doctrinal differences between Śvetāmbaras and Digambaras lie not in the presence or absence of institutions but in deeper philosophical positions; both developed similar institutional structures for monks and laityhttps://jainqq.org/pagetext/Jain_Journal_1984_07/520075/28#:~:text=This%20difference%20does%20not%20consist,for%2C%20through%2C%20in%20general%2C%20this. Sikdar therefore focuses on patterns of social change rather than purely theological disputes. By outlining religious and geographical criteria, exploring the dynamics of affiliation and secession, and highlighting the rarity of truly independent schools, he provides a framework for understanding Jain sectarian history across the pre‑medieval, medieval and modern periods.