93 Ve Sutra Me Sanjad Pad Ka Sadbhav

Here's a comprehensive summary in English of the provided Jain text, "93 ve Sutra me Sanjad Pad ka Sadbhav" by Darbarilal Kothiya:

This text delves into a scholarly debate concerning the presence and interpretation of the word "Sanjad" (संयमित - controlled/disciplined) in the 93rd sutra of the foundational Jain scripture, the Shatkhandagama (षट्खण्डागम). The author, Darbarilal Kothiya, presents arguments against the interpretation that the 93rd sutra specifically refers to the five stages of spiritual development (gunasthanas) for "Dravya Stri" (द्रव्य स्त्री - material/physical women), and argues for the presence of the "Sanjad" pada, indicating the presence of higher gunasthanas applicable to "Bhava Stri" (भाव स्त्री - mental/psychic women).

The Core Debate:

The central question is whether the 93rd sutra in the Shatkhandagama, which describes the stages of spiritual development for women, contains the word "Sanjad." Those who deny its presence argue:

1. Context of "Dravya" (Matter): The surrounding sutras (89-93) are believed to be discussing "Dravya" (material aspects), and therefore, the 93rd sutra should only refer to the five gunasthanas of "Dravya Stri."
2. Lack of Other References: There are no other explicit mentions of the five gunasthanas for "Dravya Stri" elsewhere in the Shatkhandagama.
3. Use of "Paryapt" (पर्याप्त - qualified/accomplished): The term "paryapt" in the sutra implies "Dravya Stri."
4. Absence in Virasen's Commentary: Virasen Swami's commentary on the Shatkhandagama doesn't support the presence of "Sanjad" in this sutra. If it were there, it would have been mentioned.
5. Implications for Digambara Doctrine: If the 93rd sutra isn't about the five gunasthanas of "Dravya Stri," and there are no other independent sutras stating this, then the Digambara tradition would be unable to prove this tenet from such a foundational text, potentially aligning with Shvetambara views. Therefore, the sutra should be considered without "Sanjad" and as establishing the five gunasthanas for "Dravya Stri."

Kothiya's Counter-Arguments and Analysis:

Kothiya systematically refutes these arguments, presenting his own reasoned interpretations:

1. Refutation of "Dravya Prakaran" (Context of Matter):

   • Kothiya argues that the entire section (89-93) is not exclusively about "Dravya." While sutras 89 and 90 are general discussions about humans, sutras 91-93 specifically refer to "manushya vishesh" (specific types of humans) and "manushiyoni" (women), indicating a focus beyond mere material classification.
   • The absence of terms like "Dravya Paryapt Manushya" or "Dravya Manushiyoni" in the sutras or their introductory sentences (utthānikā) further weakens the "Dravya Prakaran" argument.
   • The author contends that the focus is on "Bhava" (mental/psychic state), and by implication, the 93rd sutra describes the 14 gunasthanas for "Bhava Stri."

2. Addressing Objections (Ākṣepa-Parihāra):

   • Objection 1 (Sutra 92 and Fourth Gunasthana): An objection is raised that if sutra 92 discusses "Bhava Stri," it should also include the fourth gunasthana (Asamyak Samyagdr̥ṣṭi) which can occur in an unqualified state. Since it's omitted, sutra 92 must refer to "Dravya Stri."
     • Kothiya's Rebuttal: This is based on a misunderstanding that "Bhava Stri" can exist in an unqualified state with the fourth gunasthana. The author asserts that a "Samyagdr̥ṣṭi" (one with right faith) cannot be born as a "Bhava Stri," nor as a "Dravya Stri," regardless of the era. Citing scriptural evidence, he explains that a "Samyagdr̥ṣṭi" only manifests in the highest available gender and sensory states. Therefore, the absence of the fourth gunasthana for "Bhava Stri" in the unqualified state is doctrinally correct.
   • Objection 2 (Consistency between Sutra 92 and 93): If sutra 92 refers to "Dravya Stri" (unqualified) and sutra 93 to "Bhava Stri" (qualified), this inconsistency is questioned.
     • Kothiya's Rebuttal: As explained earlier, sutra 92 is interpreted as referring to "Bhava Stri" by exclusion, and 93rd sutra also refers to "Bhava Stri."
   • Objection 3 (Adding "Asanjad" to Sutra 92): If "Sanjad" is added to sutra 93, then "Asanjad" (uncontrolled) should be added to sutra 92.
     • Kothiya's Rebuttal: This is irrelevant because "Samyagdr̥ṣṭi" cannot be born as a "Bhava Stri," making the inclusion of "Asanjad" in relation to "Bhava Stri" moot. The mention of "Stri-veda" (female disposition) naturally leads to the discussion of "Bhava Stri."
   • Objection 4 (Implications for Sutras 89 and 90): If sutras 89 and 90 are interpreted in relation to "Bhava Veda Purusha" (males with female disposition), then terms like "Asanjad-Samyagdr̥ṣṭi" in 89 and "Sanjad" in 90 would need to be removed as they contradict the premise. This implies these sutras must refer to "Dravya Purusha."
     • Kothiya's Rebuttal: This argument is flawed. The sutras are meant to be comprehensive. Sutra 89 discusses the unqualified state of a "Samyagdr̥ṣṭi" who is both "Bhava" and "Dravya Purusha." Sutra 90 discusses the qualified state of a "Bhava" and "Dravya Purusha." These sutras are meant to establish the highest possibilities, and the objections presented are based on misinterpretations.
   • Objection 5 (Virsen's Commentary and "Sanjad"): The claim that Virasen's commentary doesn't support "Sanjad" is strongly refuted. Kothiya presents extensive quotes from Virasen's commentary (Dhavala commentary) that explicitly discuss the presence of the 14 gunasthanas for "Bhava Stri" and the implications of "Sanjad." He argues that if "Sanjad" were absent from the sutra, Virasen's detailed explanations and refutations of objections within the commentary would be baseless.
     • He clarifies that the commentary's discussions about "Dravya Stri" and the absence of "Samyagdr̥ṣṭi" in them are precisely because the sutra does refer to "Bhava Stri" and the "Sanjad" pada. The commentary uses the sutra's "Sanjad" pada to address the potential misconception that "Dravya Stri" could attain liberation.
     • Kothiya refutes the interpretation that the commentary's discussion on 14 gunasthanas is unrelated to the 93rd sutra, asserting that the phrases used directly link the commentary to the sutra's content.

3. Reasons for the Absence of "Dravya Stri" Gunasthana Discussions:

   • Historical Context: Kothiya suggests that during the time of the Shatkhandagama's composition (around 2000 years ago), inter-sectarian differences were nascent. The author believes that the clear distinction between Digambara (unclothed) and Shvetambara (clothed) traditions, and the associated theological implications (like female liberation), became more pronounced later. Initially, the primary focus was on the unqualified state of nakedness for liberation. Since "Dravya Stri" are inherently clothed, the concept of their complete liberation might not have been a primary concern for the Shatkhandagama's authors.
   • Focus on "Bhava" in Karananuyoga: Kothiya aligns with the view that the Shatkhandagama, as a text of "Karananuyoga" (exposition of conduct and time), primarily focuses on "Bhava" (mental state) rather than "Dravya" (matter). Discussions on "Dravya Stri" and their specific gunasthanas are more relevant to "Charananuyoga" (ethics and practice).
   • Lack of "Dravya Stri" Liberation Prohibition: The author argues that the Digambara tradition's denial of "Dravya Stri" liberation cannot be solely proven from the Shatkhandagama if it doesn't explicitly prohibit it. However, he states that ample scriptural, archaeological, and historical evidence supports the Digambara view that "Dravya Stri" do not attain liberation, thus refuting any Shvetambara alignment.

Key Conclusions:

• The Shatkhandagama's discourse is primarily based on "Bhava" (mental/psychic state), not "Dravya" (material state).
• The word "Sanjad" is present in the 93rd sutra, and its presence is consistent with the text and Virasen Swami's commentary.
• The "Sanjad" pada in the 93rd sutra refers to the 14 gunasthanas of "Bhava Stri," not the five gunasthanas of "Dravya Stri."
• The term "Paryapt" in the sutra signifies "Bhava," not "Dravya."
• The notion of "Samyagdr̥ṣṭi" manifesting as "Bhava Stri" is doctrinally incorrect.
• Virasen Swami's commentary directly supports the presence and interpretation of "Sanjad" in the 93rd sutra, explaining its relevance to "Bhava Stri."
• The absence of explicit mentions of "Dravya Stri" gunasthanas in the Shatkhandagama is attributed to historical context and the text's focus on "Karananuyoga."
• The Digambara belief that "Dravya Stri" do not attain liberation is well-supported by various other proofs, and the lack of specific mention in the Shatkhandagama does not lead to Shvetambara assumptions.

In essence, Kothiya's work aims to correct a perceived misinterpretation of the 93rd sutra, emphasizing the "Bhava" aspect and affirming the presence and significance of the "Sanjad" pada within the established Digambara doctrine.