Aajna Sadhuo Navin Manas Ne Dori Shake

Here's a comprehensive summary of the Jain text "Aajna Sadhuo Navin Manas ne Dori Shake" by Sukhlal Sanghavi, based on the provided PDF excerpt:

The article, "Can Today's Sadhus Guide the New Mind?" by Sukhlal Sanghavi, published in "Darshan ane Chintan Part 2," addresses a critical juncture faced by the Jain community, drawing parallels with historical shifts in Europe and wider Indian society. The central theme is the growing disconnect between traditional Jain monastic education and the evolving mindset of the modern generation.

The author begins by referencing the European Renaissance and the Reformation, where scientific thinkers and even religious figures challenged established dogma. The resistance they faced came from the entrenched religious authorities who, unable to adapt to new ideas, sought to preserve their power by limiting their scope to traditional interpretations and areas of service, thus avoiding conflict with burgeoning science and education.

Sanghavi observes a similar trend in India, particularly within the Jain community. He contrasts the vast Hindu society, which has historically accommodated both householder and renunciate gurus, with the Jain community. When modern education was introduced in India, it caused upheaval among traditional Hindu religious leaders, similar to the "new education" stirring the Jain spiritual leaders. However, in the Hindu context, progressive thinkers and movements like the Brahmo Samaj emerged, often from within the educated priestly class or from renunciates who understood and integrated modern knowledge. Figures like Swami Vivekananda and Ramakrishna are highlighted for their efforts to guide the Hindu youth, leading to a situation where despite the continued presence of traditional pandits, the new generation of Vedic society is largely unhindered in its pursuit of knowledge and intellectual freedom. The author cites the example of prominent Indian scientists and poets who were not rejected by their communities for departing from tradition, emphasizing that progress thrives when new interpretations are embraced.

The article then focuses on the Jain community, noting the gradual introduction of modern education and the resulting friction with the older mindset. Sanghavi posits that in the Jain context, the "old mindset" largely refers to the mindset of the Sadhus (monks). While acknowledging the existence of conservative householders, he argues that the reins of guidance for Jain householders have traditionally been held by the Sadhus. This authority stems from the traditional belief that Sadhus possess superior knowledge and renunciation. Consequently, lay followers have been accustomed to seeking their spiritual and intellectual guidance, believing Sadhus to be the sole authorities in matters beyond business.

When new situations arise, Sanghavi asserts that the Sadhus' mindset often acts as a catalyst or supporter of the resultant societal unrest. If a capable thinker could offer appropriate guidance to a tradition-bound householder, such unrest would likely subside faster. However, due to ignorance, narrow-mindedness, fear of losing prestige, or other reasons, many Sadhus fail to appreciate the value of new education and new circumstances. Their inaction or passive opposition leads sincere followers to believe that the new ideas are not beneficial for society, causing them to oppose the younger generation without critical thought. This situation is exacerbated when influential Sadhus become involved, leading to significant conflicts.

The author then delves into the "stagnation found in the Sadhu community." He notes that these disruptions are most prominent among the Shvetambara Murtipujaka Jains, as the Digambara community, historically, did not have a significant monastic leadership that could exert such influence. He mentions that even in the Digambara sect, some new monks and scholarly figures are resistant to modern education and freedom of thought, causing similar, albeit slower, conflicts. The Sthanakvasi community, however, is described as experiencing fewer such disruptions because their Sadhus have less influence on the practical affairs of householders. While Shvetambara Sadhus have contributed to the development of lay life, they have also created many obstacles, unlike the Sthanakvasi Sadhus, whose conflicts are resolved more organically between family members rather than through monastic intervention.

Sanghavi highlights the historical absence of direct conflict between Sadhus and lay followers on matters of education and culture. While internal disputes within the Shvetambara sect have occurred, they were primarily led by Sadhus against other Sadhus, using lay followers as their respective champions. The lay followers, adhering to their traditional roles, followed their monastic leaders without directly challenging them. The author contrasts this with the current situation, where the influence of European education has initiated a new kind of conflict between the monastic and the educated laity.

The core of this conflict, Sanghavi explains, lies in the differing educational systems and the resulting mindsets. Sadhus are educated in a system that emphasizes ancient texts, rituals, and doctrines, often presented as unchangeable and superior to all others. Their teachers are usually other Sadhus or pandits whose knowledge is rooted in centuries-old traditions. This education instills a belief that their religion is complete and unchanging, and that other religions are flawed. Their understanding of history and geography is often based on scriptural narratives rather than empirical evidence. Their philosophical studies are based on texts that are believed to be unchanged for millennia, often ignoring subsequent philosophical developments and dialogues.

In contrast, modern education, established in colleges and universities, has revolutionized subjects, methodologies, and teachers. It emphasizes scientific testing, impartial historical perspective, and broad comparative understanding. Teachers are not bound to perpetuate ancestral mindsets but are expected to impart knowledge critically. The environment of modern education, with its extensive libraries and exposure to diverse thought, is vastly different from the limited confines of monastic study.

The article further elaborates on the psychological differences: Sadhus, raised in a cloistered environment, often exhibit fear and reluctance to deviate from tradition, even when exposed to new ideas. Modern educated individuals, on the other hand, are free from such apprehensions and can express their thoughts openly. Moreover, opportunities for travel and interaction with different cultures abroad have broadened the horizons of the younger generation, challenging their inherited beliefs and fostering a new way of thinking.

The author concludes by posing the central question again: Can today's Sadhus guide the new mind? He believes this is highly improbable, given the vast chasm between the traditional monastic education and the modern mindset. The former is too narrow, and the latter is too expansive and critical. He suggests that the possibility of Sadhus like Vivekananda emerging from the current monastic system is remote. Therefore, he concludes that the new generation, shaped by modern education, must inevitably take the reins of its own guidance. This requires them to establish principles, formulate plans, and take on social responsibilities, fostering self-governance and self-control. The societal upheaval, he asserts, is a natural and unavoidable consequence of these diverging educational paths.