The papers in this panel collectively challenge received narratives on various, supposedly corrupt and lax Jain ‘semi-renouncers’, Śvetāmbara caityāvāsins, śrīpūjyas, and yatis, and Digambara bhaṭṭārakas. The perspectives on these classes of monks are often based on polemical discourses of rival traditions and are framed by post facto concerns and epistemic frameworks. In some sources, the caityāvāsins appear as indistinguishable from their nemesis, the vasatīvāsins. And in their own times, śrīpūjyas, yatis, and bhaṭṭārakas too were venerated as ideal renouncers. They took full monastic vows, and the royal paraphernalia which they adopted, including thrones, palanquins, and parasols, were not seen as a sign of their laxity but as expressions of their actual authority as the kingpins of lay and ascetic Jain polities.
In pre-modern Jain literature and in the writings of early 20th century CE scholars, the terms yati and caityavāsin, as applied to ascetics, have taken on a very pejorative connotation and have been used to refer to dissenting monks known for their lax practices. Strikingly, the term yati already appears as an equal to śramaṇa and muni in about ten long narrative works, mainly in prose and verse, written by monks between the 8th and 12th centuries CE. The aim of this paper is to examine in this under-explored corpus and in related works whether the use of the term yati applies to the so-called caityavāsins and if so, which type of monk it characterises in the complex and still shadowy monastic world of the turn of the first millennium.
The term caityavāsin has long been used to describe Śvetāmbara Jain monks accused of abandoning itinerancy and residing in temple complexes—a characterization shaped by later reformist narratives that equated temple dwelling with monastic laxity. However, pre-reform sources largely remain silent on these issues, and even non-Khartaragaccha texts do not emphasize this supposed transformation. Over time, caityavāsin became a ubiquitous polemical label, retrospectively applied to define the pre-reform past or discredit rivals. Through the case study of Upakeśagaccha, this paper examines the limitations of these polemical labels and questions the assumption that temple residence inherently violated monastic vows. By reassessing epigraphic, textual, and archaeological evidence, it challenges reductionist views and responds to broader questions of how to define the caityavāsin tradition, its practices, and the evolving concerns over monastic dwelling in Jain reform movements.
Much of the history of Jainism has been shaped by the reformist context in which it was gathered by western scholars. In the Śvetāmbara sect, 20th century CE scholars gathered most of their material from saṃvegī sādhus, who had recently all but succeeded in reforming the yati renouncers out of the tradition. This colored Jain histories of the modern era, either by characterizing yati monks by monastic laxity or śithilatā, or by leaving them out of Jain history altogether. When yatis are mentioned in histories of Jainism, they are characterized as corrupt priests who took either partial or diminished vows. In reality, yatis were highly venerated renouncers with large followings. The question remains whether they took the five great vows of a proper Jain monk. This paper will survey colonial era evidence, from gazetteers to invitation scrolls, to argue that the term “semi-renunciant” mischaracterizes the actual status of yati renouncers.
In popular conceptions of the history of Digambara Jain asceticism, ideal, naked and peripatetic mendicants (muni) are thought to have disappeared early in the second millennium CE. Persecuted by Indo-Muslim rulers, they were replaced by sedentary and clothed ‘semi-renouncers’ (bhaṭṭāraka) and only reappeared in the 20th century CE. Recent research however shows that Sultanate and Mughal era bhaṭṭārakas took the vows of fully-initiated Digambara renouncers and were venerated as paramount ascetics. The practices and symbols of sovereignty they adopted from Rajput and Persianate courtly cultures were not seen as signs of their ascetic laxity, but as expressions of their authority as the kingpins of Digambara polities. While contemporary Digambara munis operate in a social world which values different models of power, they engage in many of the same community functions as their bhaṭṭāraka forebears, and in some ways are still conceived of as kings (mahārāja).