Agam Tulya Granth Ki Pramanikta Ka Mulyankan

This document is a scholarly examination of the authenticity of Jain texts that are considered "Agam-Tulya" (equivalent to Agamas). The author, Dr. N. L. Jain, argues against the notion of their immutability, suggesting that their authenticity should be evaluated through a critical lens, similar to how scientific theories are approached in the modern era.

Here's a breakdown of the key arguments and points:

1. The Modern Scientific Approach vs. Traditional Faith:

• The author begins by highlighting the characteristic of the current scientific age, which seeks to explain both material and spiritual facts with intellectual examination and empirical evidence.
• While acknowledging that this dual approach strengthens faith, the author notes that a scientific mind is not satisfied with subjective experience, divine insight, or purely intellectual explanations from saints or philosophers.
• Therefore, scientific scrutiny is extended to the authenticity of ancient scriptures, including the Vedas and the Jain Agamas.

2. Traditional Basis for Authenticity in Jainism:

• Jain scriptures traditionally cite two reasons for their authenticity:
  • Their composition by omniscient beings (Sarvajña), Ganadharas (chief disciples), and their immediate followers.
  • The absence of contradictory evidence for the facts described in the scriptures.

3. Discrepancies and Two Approaches to Resolution:

• When examining scriptural accounts from a modern scientific perspective, clear discrepancies emerge, as noted by Muni Nandighosh Vijay.
• To address these discrepancies, scholars and tradition-keepers adopt two main approaches:
  • (a) The Scientific Approach: This view sees knowledge as evolving. Discrepancies in ancient texts are seen as markers of this developmental path, making the ancient scriptures milestones in intellectual progress. This approach allows for an evaluation of one's own intellectual advancement.
  • (b) The Tradition-Preserving Approach: This view holds that all knowledge is contained within the scriptures of the omniscient, Ganadharas, and revered Acharyas, considering it eternal. This perspective doesn't accommodate the idea of knowledge as a flowing or developmental process. When modern knowledge contradicts ancient texts, adherents emphasize the constant changeability of science versus the immutability of scriptures, prioritizing tradition. They may attempt to reconcile differences, even if it requires some stretching of interpretations. The author questions the notion that Anga literature has remained unchanged throughout different eras, suggesting that preservation also implies enrichment.

4. Development and Stagnation of Jain Canonical Beliefs:

• A critical examination suggests that the doctrines and practices outlined in Jain scriptures continued to evolve until the 9th-10th centuries CE. The author poses a question: why were they later considered fixed and immutable?
• Possible reasons for the tradition-preserving tendency, according to the author, include a lack of capable individuals (Pratima ki kami), political instability, and perhaps an increase in piety (Papchiruata). These factors also impacted the broader Indian context.

5. Classification of Acharyas and Independent Thought:

• The author classifies Acharyas into categories like Shrutsadhar, Sarasvat, tradition-preservers, and Acharya-like.
• Studying the works of prominent Acharyas in the first three categories reveals that each Acharya, in their own era, introduced additions, modifications, and deletions to traditional beliefs, names, distinctions, meanings, and interpretations, demonstrating independent thought. Knowledge flowed dynamically during their times, contributing to spiritual, cultural, historical, and political prestige. The author advocates for embracing this spirit of dynamic development to achieve further prestige in the new era, transcending mere tradition-preservation.

6. Authenticity of Acharyas and Texts - Specific Examples:

• The author discusses the concept of Acharyas' works being "Sarvajñoktyanuvadinah" (translations of the omniscient's words) but points out that detailed analysis raises doubts.

• Mahavira's Acharya Lineage:

  • There are discrepancies in the 683-year lineage after Mahavira's Nirvana. While some are resolved by texts like Jambudvipa Prajnapti, two remain problematic.
  • Discrepancies exist in the names of the first Shruta-kevalis (e.g., Nandi vs. Vishnu).
  • The number of Angas held by Acharyas like Subhadra, Yashobhadra, Madra Bahu, and Lohacharya is debated (one Anga vs. ten, nine, eight Angas).
  • The inclusion or exclusion of five Acharyas (including Pushpadanta-Bhutabali, who held one Anga) within the 683-year period, or their absence from some lists, creates further inconsistencies.
  • These variations in names, qualifications, and tenures suggest that Mahavira might not have dictated specific lineage writing styles for different eras.
  • Possible Modern Explanations:
    • Lack of a proper system for the transmission and dissemination of literature from ancient Acharyas.
    • An attempt at tradition-preservation based on incomplete or indirect information.
  • This leads to the question: which list is authoritative?

• Table 1: 683-Year Tradition from Dhavala and Prakrit Pattavali: The table highlights differences in the durations attributed to different categories of Acharyas and the total period.

• Historical Context of Acharyas:

  • The author criticizes the historical vagueness surrounding the lives of most prominent early Acharyas, contrasting it with the principle of not accepting anyone of unknown lineage.
  • The assumption of proof for all such Acharyas, despite contradictions, has been detrimental.
  • Analysis suggests many ancient Acharyas were contemporaries, with varying estimated timelines.

• Kundakunda and Umasvati:

  • If Kundakunda and Umasvati are placed after Mahavira's 683 years (i.e., post-156 CE), they cannot precede the second century.
  • There are arguments against a direct guru-disciple relationship between them:
    • Differences in the names and order of their Twelve Bhavanas (meditative contemplations).
    • Umasvati's reformulation of Panchachara and Shivarya's Chaturachara into Samyak Ratnatraya, incorporating asceticism and virya within Charitra.
    • Umasvati's clarification of Kundakunda's varied descriptions of Astikaya, Dravyas, and Tattvas, establishing the concept of seven Tattvas.
    • Umasvati's neutral stance on the priority of Advaita or Nischaya-Vyavahara perspectives.
    • Umasvati's inclusion of "Pramana" (valid means of knowledge) in Jain epistemology, a concept not explicitly discussed in earlier literature.
    • Umasvati's silence on the eleven Pratimas (stages of spiritual practice for laymen) in Shravakachara, possibly due to perceived repetition.
    • Umasvati's separation of Sallekhana from the twelve vows of a Shravaka.
    • Umasvati's reordering of Bandha and Moksha within the seven Tattvas, placing Bandha fourth and Moksha seventh, contrary to Kundakunda's sequence.
  • The author suggests Umasvati was a brilliant individual who formed his own conclusions based on diverse contemporary discussions. This approach is deemed necessary today.

7. Modifications in Theoretical Beliefs and Their Acceptance:

• The author asserts that it's illogical to consider scriptural principles, discussions, or beliefs immutable.
• Examples of Theoretical Modifications:
  • Acceptance of the evolution of the tri-yama, chatur-yama, and pancha-yama dharma across different Tirthankara eras.
  • Acceptance of the reduction of Panchachara, Chaturachara, and Ratnatraya by different Acharyas.
  • Recognition of both flowing (traditional) and non-flowing (enriched) teachings.
  • Acceptance of Akalanka and Anuyoga Dwara Sutra's division of "pratyaksha" (direct perception) into worldly and transcendental meanings to establish worldly compatibility.
  • The evolving definition of "pramana" in logic.
  • Inclusion of Ardhapālaka and Yāpanīya Acharyas whose doctrines differed from the so-called original tradition.

8. Contradictions within Scriptures:

• The absence of contradictions (Purvapar Virodh) is a key criterion for scriptural authenticity. However, the author points out that many scriptures contain mutual contradictions, and even within a single scripture, inconsistencies exist.
• Examples:
  • Discrepancies in Verse/Sutra Counts: Different commentators for texts like Kashaya Pahud, Mulachara, and Kundakunda's literature found variations in verse and sutra numbers. The author suggests this difference itself prompts authenticity checks.
  • Repetition of Verses: Many verses are repeated, indicating their traditional acceptance before the compilation of texts. These are also found in Shvetambara texts, predating the schism.
  • Contradictory Teachings within a Single Text:
    • Mulachara's verses 79-80 on the lifespan of goddesses in Saudharma heaven are contradictory.
    • Dhavala's Kashaya Pahud chapter on the quantity of subtle and gross beings in the Vanaṣpati kāyika category presents conflicting statements. The author also notes that subtle Vanaspati Kayika beings and subtle Nigoda beings are essentially the same but referred to separately.
  • Contradictory Teachings in Different Texts:
    • Variations in the description of the expanse of three Vātavalayas (wind-rings) by Yatirshabha and Simha Surya.
    • The rebirth of a soul in the Sasana Gunasthana is definitively described as rebirth in the Deva gati by Yatirshabha, while other Acharyas assign it to the Tiryancha gati (animal kingdom).
    • Differences in the views of Uchcharanacharya and Yatirshabha on natural classifications, with Yatirshabha's view of only human beings as possessors of twenty-two natural classifications conflicting.
    • Bhagavati Aradhana mentions 17 types of death, a number not found in other texts.
  • The author mentions that Shatkhandagama and Kashayapravut have differences, often referred to by the term "tantrantara" (different systems). Dhavala, Jayadhavala, and Trilokaprajnapti also show differing opinions. The author concludes that in the presence of these discrepancies, their authenticity can only be based on their historical context.

9. Discrepancies in Ethical Conduct (Achara) Descriptions:

• Similar to theoretical discussions, ethical descriptions also show inconsistencies.
• Eight Vows of a Layman (Shravaka): The tradition of eight vows is later than the twelve vows, but can be traced back to Samantabhadra. The author notes how the number eight was modified and supplemented over time.
  • The author considers Samantabhadra's verse on Mulaguna to be interpolated.
• Twenty-two Inedible Items (Abhakshya): The mention of twenty-two inedible items is not found in texts until the 10th century CE. Mulachara and Acharanga permit the consumption of uncut root vegetables and multi-seeded fruits for monks, but not for householders. This is seen as a contradiction, as householders progress towards monkhood. Somadeva and others did not impose restrictions on prasuka (freshly prepared) and aprasuka (stale) food for householders. The earliest mention of twenty-two inedible items appears in Nemichandra Suri's Pravachana Saroddhara and later in Manavijaya Gani's Dharmasangraha. In Digambara texts, the number twenty-two for inedible items within 53 activities is mentioned only during Daulatram's time. Thus, the concept of edible/inedible items became established only after the 10th century.
• Components of Food: Differences exist in the components of edible food. Mulachara, verses 822 and 826, describe six and four components respectively. This leads to the suggestion that Mulachara might be a compilation work.
• Vows of a Layman: The tradition of twelve vows for laymen dates back to the era of Kundakunda and Umasvati. Kundakunda included Sallekhana, while Umasvati, Samantabhadra, and Ashadhara do not. This leads to variations in the names of the twelve vows.
  • Guna Vratas and Shiksha Vratas: The author highlights differences in the names and interpretations of these vows among Kundakunda, Umasvati, Ashadhara, and Samantabhadra. The author notes that most later Acharyas followed Umasvati.
  • The ambiguity of the term "bhogopabhoga" (consumption and enjoyment) has led to multiple names for this vow.
• Stages of Layman's Practice (Pratimas): The tradition of eleven Pratimas for progressing from layman to monkhood is from Kundakunda's era. Despite uniformity in number, there are differences in names and meanings. The name of the sixth Pratima is particularly debated (renunciation of night meals vs. renunciation of midday sexual intercourse). The author finds the former to be repetitive. Somadeva introduced new names for many Pratimas. Hemachandra also consolidated names to avoid repetition. The author praises this effort. However, the author mentions that in the 20th century, Muni Kshirasagara made further consolidations, but these new names have not gained acceptance.
• Transgressions of Vows (Atichara): Differences are also found in the transgressions of laymen's vows.

10. Acceptance of Caste and Varna:

• Author states that Acharya Jinatena's process of Brahmanization of Jains is not supported by earlier Agamic literature or his successors like Gunabhadra and Vasunandi.

11. Discrepancies in Descriptions of the Physical World:

• Descriptions of the physical world, including the six Dravyas (substances), are discussed.
  • Jiva (Soul): Umasvati defines Jiva by "upayogo lakshanam" (consciousness is its characteristic). However, later texts include happiness and energy in the definition of Upayoga, and sometimes treat Upayoga and Chetana (consciousness) as distinct.
  • Origin of Life: The concept of sammurchhana (spontaneous generation) extending to organisms with fewer than five senses is questioned. Bhadrabahu, a holder of fourteen Purvas, classified flies, spiders, ants, etc., as oviparous in the Kalpa Sutra.
  • Ajeeva (Non-soul) and Pudgala (Matter): While acknowledging the subtlety of distinguishing Ajeeva from Pudgala, the author finds the description of its types, based on the gross perceptibility of the eye and the subtle perceptibility of other senses, somewhat inconsistent from a modern perspective.
  • Forms of Matter and Varganas: The discussion of atomic clusters and varganas predates Kundakunda, but Kundakunda was the first to classify clusters into six types based on visual perception, distinguishing between gross and subtle forms. This categorization places heat, light, etc., in the third category (gross-subtle) and air, gases, and substances with smell and taste in the fourth category (subtle-gross). Unfortunately, sound energy, being audible, is considered subtler than light.
  • Vargana Order: The vargana order described in Dhavala seems to be based on increasing grossness, but the sequence of atoms, food, tejas (fire) body, language, karmana (action) body, individual body, gross nigoda, and subtle nigoda varganas appears inconsistent. Tejas body is described as subtler than karmana body, while tejas (energies) and sound are subtler than food atoms. Subtle nigoda should be subtler than gross nigoda, and the mind (if referring to the brain) is grosser than an individual body.
  • Bonding Laws of Atoms: The Jain description of atomic bonding laws based on electrical properties is unprecedented but can be modified by knowledge of noble gas compounds, coordination complexes, and complex salts. The author notes differences in the scholarly interpretation of these laws, with some scholars attempting to prove scriptural validity through various interpretations. However, they should not dismiss the size differences between tejas and moisture varganas as merely mental or equate germinal (sexual) reproduction with asexual sammurchhana reproduction.

12. Conclusion:

• The examination of texts like Shatkhandagama, Kashaya Pahud, Kundakunda, Umasvati, and later Churni/commentaries reveals several key facts:
  • These texts were composed between the 1st century BCE and the 13th century CE. Their authors were "Arateeya" (revered) but not omniscient or Ganadharas.
  • The traditional two bases for their Agam-like authenticity do not fully apply.
  • Kundakunda's spiritual literature did not become influential until after Amritachandra and Jayasena (10th-12th centuries CE). Despite this, its historical significance is acknowledged. The author notes the curious omission of Anga-Purva holders like Bhadrabahu in the auspicious verses for study, and the greater reliance of later Acharyas on Umasvati's views over Kundakunda's. This led to a sect division when Banarasidas re-established Kundakunda's importance in the 16th century, a possibility seen in the 20th century as well.
  • Many ideas and beliefs in these texts evolved, were modified, and enriched later.
  • Many ethical descriptions also underwent progressive development and modification.
  • Contradictory descriptions exist both within individual texts and between different texts. The method of "both teachings are acceptable" is deemed illogical.
  • Many descriptions of the physical world appear inconsistent from a modern viewpoint, and scholars of the post-Ashadhara era have accepted these inconsistencies.
  • Ancient Acharyas and commentators preserved, nourished, and developed many previous beliefs in ethics and thought in their times. Therefore, the notion of the immutability of all scriptural beliefs is not based on solid facts.
  • The tendency to disregard or refute scientifically proven facts based on the assumption of immutability is not in line with the glory of the flow of knowledge.

13. Call for Critical Evaluation:

• The author concludes by urging a critical examination of scriptural descriptions and ideas to assess their authenticity, as scientists do. This method of testing was initiated by Acharyas like Samantabhadra and Akalanka centuries ago. In the current intellectual age, faith can only be built upon scientifically verified accuracy. Acharya Kundakunda also indicated this.