Aastikonu Karttavya - Book Summary

This document, "Aastikonu Karttavya" (The Duty of Believers), published by Jain Yuvak Sangh and authored by Motichand Girdharlal Kapadia, is a collection of writings and correspondence surrounding a public lecture given by Acharya Shrimad Sagaranand Surishwarji. The lecture, delivered in Ahmedabad on December 12, 1928, on the topic of "Aastikonu Kartavya," sparked a significant public debate and controversy, primarily involving Shri Motichand Kapadia.

The core of the conflict revolves around the interpretation and dissemination of Acharya Sagaranand Surishwarji's lecture, which aimed to define "believers" (Aastik) in contrast to "non-believers" (Nastik) from a Jain perspective. The publication itself serves as a defense and clarification of the Acharya's stance against what the publishers perceived as misrepresentations and attacks, particularly from Motichand Kapadia.

Here's a breakdown of the key themes and content:

1. The Central Controversy:

The Lecture: Acharya Sagaranand Surishwarji's lecture defined Nastik as those who do not believe in the soul, karma, rebirth, heaven, or hell, and who reject asceticism and the pursuit of virtue. He argued that the term "Nastik" arose as a reaction to the emergence of "Aastik" (believers).
Motichand Kapadia's Reaction: Kapadia, a solicitor, published an article in the "Mumbai Samachar" newspaper on December 14, 1928, presenting a summary of the lecture. The publishers claim this summary was inaccurate and misleading, designed to misrepresent the Acharya and lead the Jain community astray.
The "Mumbai Samachar" Reports: The publication highlights a timeline of reports and clarifications in the "Mumbai Samachar." An initial summary (December 14) was deemed incorrect, followed by an official, more comprehensive report from the society (December 19).
The Challenge and Response: Kapadia challenged the Acharya based on the summary, leading to a series of telegrams and a public debate. The Acharya challenged Kapadia to bring Acharya Vijay Vallabh Suri to prove his points, particularly concerning the perceived criticism of certain Jain rituals.

2. Key Arguments and Accusations:

Misrepresentation of the Lecture: The publishers accuse Kapadia of distorting the Acharya's message, particularly by allegedly misinterpreting his views on education and rituals like Upadhan and Ujavan.
Attacks on Acharya Vijay Vallabh Suri: A significant part of the dispute involves Kapadia's alleged attempt to portray Acharya Vijay Vallabh Suri as a Nastik, which the publishers vehemently deny, highlighting Vijay Vallabh Suri's commitment to Jain principles.
The Definition of "Nastik": The debate touches upon the philosophical definition of Nastik, with Kapadia questioning the Acharya's broad definition that might encompass many modern educated Jains. The Acharya maintains that a refusal to acknowledge the principles of karma, rebirth, and spiritual liberation defines a Nastik.
The Role of Education: The Acharya's lecture, and the subsequent controversy, touched upon the role of education in the Jain community. While Kapadia argued that the Acharya was against modern education, the publishers claim the Acharya's critique was directed at education devoid of spiritual values.
The Nature of Jain Asceticism and Rituals: The discussion involves the validity and importance of rituals like Upadhan and Ujavan. Kapadia's side is accused of dismissing these as mere "smoke" (dhuamda), while the Acharya's side defends their spiritual significance.
"Aastik" vs. "Nastik" Behavior: The document emphasizes the difference in conduct. Aastiks are described as self-reliant and capable of spiritual practice even when alone, while Nastiks rely on others for their pursuits and seek to spread their disbelief.
The "Challenge" and its Aftermath: The text details the exchange of telegrams where the Acharya repeatedly invited Kapadia and Acharya Vijay Vallabh Suri to meet and prove the Acharya's lecture. The lack of a substantive response from Kapadia's side is highlighted as a sign of weakness or inability to prove their claims.
Motichand Kapadia's Open Letter: A significant portion of the book is dedicated to an open letter from Motichand Kapadia to Acharya Sagaranand Surishwarji. This letter is critical of the Acharya's lecture, accusing him of long-sightedness, lack of synthesis, jealousy, and madness. Kapadia defends modern educated Jains and argues that the Acharya's definition of Nastik is too broad. He challenges the Acharya to prove his claims about Acharya Vijay Vallabh Suri.
The 160 Questions: The document includes an extensive list of 160 questions posed by Acharya Sagaranand Surishwarji to Motichand Kapadia. These questions probe deeply into Kapadia's arguments, his interpretation of the Acharya's lecture, his definition of Nastik, his views on education, and his accusations against Acharya Vijay Vallabh Suri. The questions are designed to expose inconsistencies and lack of scriptural basis in Kapadia's stance.

3. The Purpose of the Publication: The preface and the concluding remarks clearly state the intention behind this compilation:

To present the truth about the Acharya's lecture and the subsequent debate.
To counter what they perceived as a misleading campaign by Kapadia and his supporters.
To help the Jain community discern the truth and avoid being misled by "dishonest propaganda."
To encourage critical thinking and understanding of Jain principles.

In essence, "Aastikonu Kartavya" is a detailed account and defense of a theological and philosophical debate within the Jain community concerning the definition of faith, the role of rituals, the importance of spiritual knowledge, and the interpretation of scripture in the context of modern times. It showcases a strong assertion of traditional Jain values and principles against what its authors perceived as a challenge from a more modernistic or liberal interpretation.