9. Research Methodology

The thesis will be based on a combination of different methodologies: (1) A texthistorical study of key sections of the Jaina canon and its commentaries will be undertaken in order to ascertain Jaina approaches to meditation that prevailed from the early to the classical period (3^rd c. BCE to 6^th c. CE). (2) An analysis of the exegetical methods will be made with regard to the uses of primary resources by the creators of modern prekṣā-dhyāna, assuming that commentary is a means in the process of traditionbuilding and -transformation. (3) Ideal-typical analysis’ (4) Qualitative field research methods.

Without understanding commentarial literature, the past cannot be connected with or disconnected from the present. In this study, a range of text-historical exegetical approaches will therefore, be used. An exegetical approach will be adopted particularly in relation to the first task, the reconstruction of the development of meditational techniques in the Jaina tradition on the basis of the old Sanskrit and Prakrit Jaina texts.^[1] The approach of conducting a text-historical study combined with textual hermeneutics is as old as religious literature itself. A modern exegetical approach to Sanskrit and Prakrit texts can be categorised into three broad aspects^[2] :

(1) synchronic understanding of the text in a single time frame, preferably in accordance with the intentions of the author;
(2) diachronic understanding of the text in its historical context; and
(3) an effective historical approach to the text in its actual social and political context.

A synchronic approach to the texts includes an understanding of its purpose and readership or listenership, its function in particular contexts and its historical situation; as well as the textual structure in which relevant passages are embedded, inter-textual and linguistic analysis of the text and so on, and an understanding of how these elements cohere. Diachronic analysis of text considers the historical development of the text itself. It incorporates sources such as material culture in different historical periods, texts which have the same or a similar meaning in different historical strata, the historical role of the text. It looks at the origins of the literary meaning of the text (genres, diagrams, lost text, explicit and implicit meanings, importations from Buddhist and Hindu texts, etc.), and the prehistory of the context of the text (mythological paradigms, etc.). The effective historical approach considers how the text was understood or misunderstood over time, and its effect on society and politics.

The construction of prekṣā-dhyāna as an explicitly modern form of practice will be studied in the light of the theory of ‘Jaina Modernism’. As already mentioned, the term “Jaina Modernism”, an ideal type, was coined by Peter Flügel in 1994, by way of adaptation of Heinz Bechert’s concept “Buddhist Modernism” to the Jaina context. According to Flügel, Jaina Modernism is ‘as a distinct type of Jainism with unique characteristics’. Ideal types are analytical constructs and models, that are used for the purpose of comparative analysis. They are helpful for the discovery of significant variations in a set of data.

Flügel attempts to show, for instance, how ancient Jaina thought is interpreted according to modern modes of thinking, oriented towards social progress, for instance in the Terāpanth tradition, which underwent profound changes under the leadership of Ācārya Tulasī:

[The] Terāpanth order reformed itself and adopted an interest not only in world renunciation but also in world transformation, that is, in the improvement of the conditions of existence, on a regional and global scale. An important element of their outward looking, modernist orientation was their keen interest in the interaction between Jainism and modern science, especially biology, medicine and neuroscience, and also the fields of comparative philology, philosophy, ethics, psychology, social work and health’ (Flügel, 2011: 25).

Scientific analysis of Jaina texts and practices and the process of redefining various concepts in the light of science is a way towards modernity. In the context of prekṣādhyāna Mahāprajña uses for instance the traditional term kāyotsarga, but for appeal to the global audience it is translated into English as “relaxation with self-awareness” rather than its literal translation as “abandonment of the body”. Similarly, Mahāprajña renamed the old haṭha-yogic cakra system “psychic centres” (caitanya-kendra) and mapped it upon the glanduary system. However, as will be demonstrated in chapter 4, this not just a matter of changed terminology on the part of the translator from the original Hindi, but the efficacy of the technique itself is explained in terms of an theory of the function of the hormonal system based on modern scientific insights in physiology.

Both historical methods and an ideal-typical analysis have been employed in order to trace the processes of construction of prekṣā-dhyāna, including practical experiments on the basis of biographical and autobiographical accounts of Tulasī and Mahāprajña. In addition to the investigation of textual sources, ancient and modern, interviews with traditional scholars, monks and nuns of the Terāpanth School in India have been undertaken as a valuable source for the reconstruction of the history of the development of prekṣā-dhyāna and of interpreting the above texts. Tape-recorded interviews with Mahāprajña’s early collaborators such as Muni Tārācanda, Sādhvī Rājīmatī, Muni Mahendra Kumāra, Muni Sukhalal and Swāmī Dharmānanda etc. have been undertaken and analysed for insight into the origins and development of prekṣā-dhyāna. Interviews with Vipassanā head Satyanārāyana Goenkā and his collaborators in India were also conducted to respond to the debate among scholars^[3] about his claim “the designers of prekṣā-dhyāna made some modifications [in vipassanā] and started teaching it as Prekṣā Dhyāna” (Goenkā, 2009: 5).

It is evident that being part of the Terāpanth ascetic community, I the researcher will be considered as an “insider”. In 1983, pursuing the path of liberation (mumukṣu), I joined the Pāramārthika Śikṣaṇa Sansthā, which is a training center for an aspirant of an ascetic life in the Terāpanth. This is when I first started practicing prekṣā-dhyāna. It was part of the daily routine (dinacaryā) for a mumukṣu to practice prekṣā-dhyāna early in the morning at 4 am. Later in 1989, I was initiated into the samaṇa order (samaṇa-śreṇī).

The samaṇa-śreṇī is a new cadre in Jaina Terāpanth monkhood, started by Ācārya Tulasī in 1980. It is a middle path between the full-fledged monkhood (sādhu) and the laity (gṛhastha). As Peter Flügel stated, the samaṇa-śreṇī was created with “relaxed rules” which facilitate its members to work beyond the boundaries of the strict systems of Jaina monastic asceticism (Flügel, 2000:8).^[4]

My personal communication with Mahāprajña from 1983-2010, in a relation of Guru and disciple (śiṣya) enriched my knowledge of the field of prekṣā-dhyāna through periods of daily personal interaction, canonical teaching sessions (vācanā), his public discourses (vyākhyāna), prekṣā-dhyāna training (praśikṣaṇa), and walking with the guru (padayātrā). My special training to be a coach for prekṣā-dhyāna started under the guidance of Ācārya Mahāprajña during Yogakṣema-varṣa^{[5] [6]} in 1990 and continued since then every year for one month during the winter festival of Maryādā Mahotsava^[7]. As an official instructor I had the opportunity to organize more than 200 camps (śivira), workshops (kāryaśālā) within India and abroad.

When I got an opportunity to be a researcher in the same field, it certainly has been advantageous to have a deeper personal insight in the area of my research topic as a participant. During my field work in India (2013-14), in India data collection was easy for me. The advantage of being an insider facilitated my access to Mahāprajña’s unpublished personal letters and diaries, for instance. Already acquainted with the tradition, I was aware of all possible key source persons I could reach out to. Further, to add experience and understand the technique of vipassanā, I participated in 2014 in a ten-day-long vipassanā camp as well, which was held at Curu, Rajasthan, India.

The role of an insider researcher is studied by Ferber. He says, “to study religion “objectively” researchers sometimes partition themselves into separate persons” (Ferber, 2006: 178). While my insider status facilitated initial understanding and access during the ethnographic research collecting data, the presented analysis aims at objectivity. As far as possible, I have indicated in the text where differences between 'emic' and 'etic' perspectives may lead to substantially different assessments of the reported facts. The same approach was applied to encountered differences between official doctrine and private views.

The researcher has utilised qualitative research methodology, which includes field notes, interviews, conversations, recordings etc. Efforts have been made to follow the methodological controls of the hermeneutical approach regarding interpretation of the material used herein.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

Dundas (2007: 88–94) noted the rejection of the authority of commentarial literature in the Jaina aniconic tradition. However, in contrast to this viewpoint, Mahāprajña has made ample use of commentaries in developing prekṣā-dhyāna; for example, see his treatment of the concept of kāyotsarga (Mahāprajña, 2004: 98–128; 2007a: 301; 2007b: 64–76; 2007c: 24–8) which incorporated the physical and mental benefits of kāyotsarga set out in commentaries (Āvaśyaka-niryukti₁, 1476).

[2]:

See, Payer (1995) http://www.payer.de/wiāsslink.htm

[3]:

Scholers like Bronkhorst (1993), Sāgaramala Jain (2010), Qvarnström and Birch (2012), Flügel (2012b) and Stuart (2016).

[4]:

For further information about the codes of conduct of Samaṇaśreṇī see, Samaṇī Sanmatiprajñā, (1996) and Flügel, 2003a.

[5]:

Yogakṣema-varṣa was a year-long celebration which began in 1998 on the occasion of Ācārya Tulasī’s

[6]:

^th birthday at his birthplace, Lāḍanūṃ. It was celebrated as a year of training by the Terāpanth sect.

[7]:

Maryādā Mahotsava is a festival of management of the Terāpanth sect which intensifying the code of conduct for both the ascetics and lay followers.