Anusandhan Me Purvagrahamukti Avashyaka Kuch Prashna Aur Samadhan

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Anusandhan me Purvagrahamukti Avashyaka Kuch Prashna aur Samadhan" by Darbarilal Kothiya, focusing on its arguments and responses:

The article, "Freedom from Bias is Essential in Research: Some Questions and Solutions," by Darbarilal Kothiya, addresses criticisms and questions raised by the editor of the magazine 'Shraman' regarding his book, "Jain Darshan aur Pramanshastra Parishilan" (Jain Philosophy and Study of Epistemology). Kothiya emphasizes the importance of unbiased analysis in academic reviews and proceeds to clarify specific points raised by the editor.

Key Questions and Kothiya's Responses:

The article is structured around responding to four main points raised by the editor:

1. Question 1: Samantabhadra's Posteriority to Kumarila and Dharmakirti?

• Editor's Question: Since Samantabhadra's works (like Aptamimamsa) refute the views of Kumarila and Dharmakirti, shouldn't Samantabhadra be considered later than them?
• Kothiya's Argument (Evidence-based):
  • Kothiya reiterates his earlier research, which conclusively proves that Kumarila and Dharmakirti critique Samantabhadra's works, particularly the Aptamimamsa. This means Samantabhadra predates them.
  • Samantabhadra's Contribution: Samantabhadra is presented as the first Jain and Indian philosopher to prove omniscience (Sarvajña) through inference in his Aptamimamsa. He argued that since all propagators of teachings (like Buddha, Mahavira, etc.) have contradictory teachings, only one must be a true omniscient. He then uses inference, for example, the absence of defects and coverings in someone like an omniscient, and the inferability of subtle objects, to establish the existence of a general omniscient. He further identifies this specific omniscient with Lord Mahavira.
  • Kumarila's Refutation: Kothiya demonstrates that Kumarila's arguments directly counter Samantabhadra's points. Kumarila negates both general and specific omniscience. He specifically questions how one can be identified as the sole omniscient when all propagators are contradictory and use similar logical reasons. He uses examples like contrasting viewpoints of Sugata and Kapila. Kumarila also critiques the inferential basis for omniscience used by Samantabhadra.
  • Akalaṅka's Defense: Akalaṅka, the commentator on Samantabhadra's Aptamimamsa, provides strong rebuttals to Kumarila's criticisms, defending Samantabhadra's arguments, particularly regarding the inferential validity of 'inferability' (anumeyatva) and other logical grounds. Kothiya argues that if Samantabhadra were later, he would have responded to Kumarila himself, not left it to Akalaṅka.
  • Samantabhadra's Influence on Kumarila: Kothiya also points out that Kumarila followed Samantabhadra's concept of change and permanence (utpāda, vyaya, dhrauvya). Kumarila's philosophical stance on this concept is shown to be directly influenced by Samantabhadra's illustrations and even his vocabulary and style. This demonstrates Samantabhadra's precedence.
  • Vadiraaja's Confirmation: The renowned logician Vadiraaja (11th century CE) is cited as explicitly stating that Kumarila followed Samantabhadra, further solidifying Samantabhadra's earlier position.
  • Dharmakirti's Refutation: Similarly, Kothiya argues that Dharmakirti (7th century CE) also critiqued Samantabhadra's definition of Syadvada (the doctrine of manifold predications) and his assertion of the dual nature of reality (sad-asad, ek-anek, etc.). Again, Akalaṅka's refutations of Dharmakirti's points are presented as evidence that Samantabhadra predates Dharmakirti. Kothiya dismisses earlier suggestions of Samantabhadra being later than Dharmakirti based on extensive evidence.

2. Question 2: Siddhasena's Nyayavatara and Samantabhadra's Shravakachara - A Shared Verse?

• Editor's Question: If a verse is found in both Siddhasena's Nyayavatara and Samantabhadra's Shravakachara, why assume Samantabhadra is earlier? Couldn't Samantabhadra have borrowed it?
• Kothiya's Argument:
  • Kothiya highlights a specific verse (verse 9 in Ratnakaranda Shravakachara) describing the characteristics of scripture, which also appears in Siddhasena's Nyayavatara.
  • Contextual Necessity: He argues that this verse is essential and integral to Samantabhadra's Shravakachara, appearing where it is logically needed to define scripture after defining the divine.
  • Superfluous in Nyayavatara: In contrast, Kothiya claims the verse in Nyayavatara is not contextually essential. It supports a preceding verse (verse 8) about the nature of verbal testimony but can be removed without disrupting the text's flow. This suggests it was adopted into Nyayavatara.
  • Historical Context: Furthermore, Kothiya points out that Nyayavatara shows influence from Dharmakirti, Kumarila, and Patraswami, all of whom are considered later than Samantabhadra. This makes the idea of Samantabhadra borrowing from Siddhasena purely speculative and unsupported.

3. Question 3: Development of Jain Logic and Mimicry by Buddhism and Brahmanism?

• Editor's Statement: The editor questions the premise that Jain logic developed first and was then imitated by Buddhist and Brahmanical schools.
• Kothiya's Clarification:
  • Kothiya clarifies that he never claimed Jain logic was developed first and then imitated.
  • Origin and Inspiration: He states that Jain logic originated from the twelfth Anga, the Drishtivada Shruta, not from Buddhist or Brahmanical logic. However, he acknowledges that Jain logic may have flourished alongside and been inspired by the development of Buddhist and Brahmanical logical systems, with mutual exchange being natural among contemporaries.
  • Misinterpretation: He expresses surprise and regret that the editor accused him of making a baseless and provocative claim when his actual position was about inspiration, not direct imitation of Jain logic by others.

4. Question 4: Tattvarthasutra's Tradition and Differences with Digambara and Shvetambara Acharyas.

• Editor's Argument: The editor suggests that differences between the Tattvarthasutra author and Digambara acharyas, or even Shvetambara acharyas, do not preclude the Tattvarthasutra belonging to the Shvetambara tradition. He cites differences in understanding of 'naya' (standpoints) and the twelve vows of a householder between Kundakunda and the Tattvarthasutra author.
• Kothiya's In-depth Analysis:
  • Distinction between Difference and Tradition: Kothiya emphasizes a crucial distinction between mere differences in opinion/methodology ('matbhed') and fundamental differences in tradition ('paramparabhed'). He states that while differences in outlook exist even within the same tradition (e.g., Samantabhadra, Jinadatta, Somadeva on the eight fundamental virtues), fundamental differences point to distinct traditions.
  • Origin of Traditions: He briefly explains the division of the Jain Sangh into Digambara and Shvetambara after Acharya Bhadrabahu.
  • Key Evidence for Tattvarthasutra's Digambara Leanings: Kothiya presents several points from his research demonstrating that the Tattvarthasutra aligns more closely with the Digambara tradition:
    • Pariṣahas (Endurances): The Tattvarthasutra includes "nagnapariṣaha" (the endurance of nudity) and "dand-mashakpariṣaha" (endurance of bites from insects and mosquitoes). Kothiya argues that these are inherently applicable to completely unclothed (Digambara) ascetics, not those who wear clothes. The absence of "purushapariṣaha" (endurance related to men) alongside "striapariṣaha" (endurance related to women) in the Tattvarthasutra is also significant. He explains that in the Digambara tradition, women cannot attain liberation due to the absence of certain physiological structures (vajra-vrishabhanarach sanhanana), hence the mention of suffering from women might be relevant for male ascetics. Conversely, if women can attain liberation, the absence of "purushapariṣaha" is puzzling if the tradition allowed for female ascetics facing male misconduct.
    • Tirthankara Bandhakaranas (Causes for Tirthankara Karma): The Shvetambara texts list 20 causes for attracting Tirthankara status, while the Tattvarthasutra lists 16, which aligns with the Digambara Shadkhandagama. Kothiya argues that the missing four causes in the Tattvarthasutra (like Dhanyakatha, Siddha Bhakti, etc.) were not simply omitted due to brevity but because they were not considered separate causes for Tirthankara karma in the Digambara tradition.
    • Viviktashayyasana Tap: The Tattvarthasutra mentions "viviktashayyasana tap" (penance of secluded sleep and seating), which differs from the "samlinata tap" (penance of restraint) found in Shvetambara scriptures. Kothiya argues that "charya" (walking) and "shayyasana" (sitting/sleeping) are distinct activities, and while "viviktacharya" might be distinct from "samlinata," "viviktashayyasana" specifically refers to secluded sleep and seating, which is more compatible with the Digambara practice of living in secluded places.
  • Critique of Editor's Defense: Kothiya challenges the editor's arguments by questioning why a text mentioning these specific pariṣahas (like nudity and insect bites) would not be considered Digambara. He also dismisses the editor's attempt to equate "viviktacharya" and "viviktashayyasana" as a misunderstanding of basic Jain terminology.
  • Conclusion on Tattvarthasutra: Kothiya concludes that the evidence strongly suggests the Tattvarthasutra is based on the Digambara tradition (specifically, the Shadkhandagama) and not the Shvetambara tradition. He implies that labeling the Tattvarthasutra as Shvetambara based on minor differences while ignoring these fundamental discrepancies is intellectually dishonest.

Overall Theme and Author's Plea:

Throughout the article, Kothiya advocates for:

• Unbiased Research: The core message is the necessity of objective, evidence-based research, free from pre-existing biases, especially when reviewing scholarly works.
• Thoroughness: He urges critics to read the reviewed works carefully and engage with the arguments and evidence presented, rather than making superficial criticisms.
• Intellectual Honesty: He calls for intellectual honesty in admitting and presenting facts, even if they contradict pre-established notions or personal affiliations.
• Respectful Discourse: While firm in his arguments, Kothiya aims for a reasoned and polite exchange, even when refuting opposing views.

In essence, Kothiya's article is a robust defense of his research findings and a plea for a more rigorous and unbiased approach to academic discourse within Jain scholarship.