Amrutchandra Aur Kashtha Sangh - Book Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Amrutchandra aur Kashtha Sangh" by Kailashchandra Shastri:

This article delves into the scholarly debate surrounding the affiliation of the prominent Jain commentator, Amritchandra, with the Kashtha Sangh. The author, Kailashchandra Shastri, critically examines evidence and arguments to clarify Amritchandra's position within Jain traditions.

Key Points and Arguments:

The "Prashasti" and its Misinterpretation: The article begins by addressing a "Prashasti" (inscription) found at the end of the Pravachanasara published by Rayachandra Shastramala. This inscription mentions the Kashtha Sangh Mathuranvay tradition and dates to V.S. 1466. However, Shastri clarifies that this prashasti is not for Amritchandra but for the scribe or owner of the manuscript, who happened to be from the Kashtha Sangh. Therefore, simply because the Pravachanasara manuscript with Amritchandra's commentary had this inscription, it doesn't automatically make Amritchandra a follower of the Kashtha Sangh.
Meghavijay Gani's Citation: Another piece of evidence cited is the Yuktiprabodh by Meghavijay Gani, which quotes verses attributed to Amritchandra. One of these verses, originally from the Dhadasi Gatha, is attributed by Meghavijay Gani to Amritchandra. However, Shastri points out that the Dhadasi Gatha itself is described as being by an "unknown name, Kashtha Sanghi Muktacharya." Thus, similar to the "Prashasti" argument, attributing Amritchandra to the Kashtha Sangh based on Meghavijay Gani's citation is also considered speculative.
Devasena's Criticism of Kashtha Sangh: The article highlights that Devsenacharya, the author of Darshansar, listed the Kashtha Sangh Mathur Sangh among "Jainabhasas" (false Jains). Devsen criticizes the Kashtha Sangh for practices like admitting women to initiation and considering the "viracharyā" (ascetic practices of men) for "kshullakas" (a junior monastic order).
Amritchandra's Commentary and the Discrepancy in Verse Count: A crucial point of discussion is the difference in the number of verses commented upon by Amritchandra and his later commentator, Jayasen. Amritchandra's commentaries on Panchastikaya, Pravachanasara, and Samaysara have fewer verses than Jayasen's, suggesting that Jayasen might have had access to more verses or included verses that Amritchandra did not. Specifically, Jayasen's commentary on the Pravachanasara includes eleven verses in the Charitra section (after verse 24) that prohibit the liberation of women, verses not found in Amritchandra's commentary.
The Hypothesis and its Refutation: The article explores the hypothesis that because the Kashtha Sangh supposedly accepted women's initiation and Amritchandra was associated with them, he might have omitted the verses prohibiting women's liberation from his commentary. However, Shastri strongly refutes this.
- Amritchandra's Adherence to 28 Mulgunas: Amritchandra strictly adheres to the 28 "Mulgunas" (fundamental vows) of a monk as propounded by Kundakunda, which includes nudity.
- Critique of Possessions (Parigraha): Amritchandra's commentary on Kundakunda's verses about abandoning possessions (like in verse 3.16 of Pravachanasara) emphasizes the impurity of attachment to possessions, aligning with the principle of renunciation, which is antithetical to practices that might compromise ascetic rigor.
- Praise of Nudity: Amritchandra's commentary on the Pravachanasara (verses 3/25, 26) explicitly accepts the "jahajad rupa" (naked form) of an ascetic.
- Rejection of Shvetambara Views: In his Tattvarthasara, Amritchandra defines "vipareet mithyatva" (opposite false belief) by stating, "The one who is attached (sagrana) and also unattached (nirgranth), the one who eats food (grasahaari) and is also Kevali (all-knowing)." He identifies practices like considering a clothed person as unattached or a food-eating person as Kevali as "opposite false belief." These are views associated with the Shvetambara tradition, implying Amritchandra considered them as mistaken.
Amritchandra's Scholarly Depth and Goal: Shastri emphasizes that Amritchandra was a profound scholar, deeply devoted to Kundakunda's philosophy. His commentaries aimed not just at literal interpretation but at revealing the core essence of Kundakunda's teachings. His prose and poetry are described as flowing, meditative, and capable of drawing the reader into a state of spiritual absorption.
The Significance of Amritchandra's Commentaries: The article highlights that Kundakunda's original works, though in Prakrit, are challenging. Amritchandra's Sanskrit commentaries, however, are considered profound and often difficult to access for those not well-versed in Sanskrit and the intricacies of Anekanta (non-absolutism).
- Amritchandra's work is credited with "illuminating" Kundakunda's works, making them shine like the sun in the Jain firmament. Without his commentaries, Kundakunda might have remained obscure for over a thousand years.
- Jayasen, and subsequently Balachandra, were inspired by Amritchandra's commentaries, creating a lineage of spiritual dissemination.
Addressing the Discrepancy Again: Shastri concludes that the difference in verse counts and the absence of the verses regarding women's liberation in Amritchandra's commentary cannot be attributed to his affiliation with the Kashtha Sangh or his acceptance of women's liberation. Instead, he posits that:
- Unavailability of Manuscripts: The most plausible explanation for the missing verses is that the manuscripts available to Amritchandra did not contain them.
- Focus on Core Teachings: Amritchandra, being highly spiritual, might have preferred to focus on the central spiritual tenets of Kundakunda, avoiding potentially divisive sectarian issues. He aimed for commentaries that would be acceptable across different sects.
- Kundakunda's Own Deliberation: Shastri suggests that Kundakunda himself, being a master author, would not have included numerous verses on prohibiting women's liberation in Pravachanasara if Lingaprahud and Bhavaprahud were available for such discussions. He likely addressed these issues in other works with more balance.

In essence, Kailashchandra Shastri's article argues that while indirect associations might suggest a link between Amritchandra and the Kashtha Sangh, closer examination of Amritchandra's theological stance and his profound scholarship reveals him to be a staunch follower of Kundakunda's core ascetic principles, particularly as expressed in his rejection of Shvetambara views and his adherence to the 28 Mulgunas, including nudity. The discrepancies in his commentaries are attributed to manuscript variations and his primary focus on the overarching spiritual essence of Kundakunda's philosophy.