Anusandhan Vishayak Mahattvapurna Prashnottara

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Anusandhan vishayak Mahattvapurna Prashnottara" by Darbarilal Kothiya, focusing on the questions and answers presented:

The text is a collection of questions and answers designed to resolve doubts and queries from readers and gentlemen regarding research and Jain scriptures. It aims to provide clarity on various scholarly and scriptural matters.

Key Questions and Answers:

1. The Existence of Vidyānandamahodaya:

   • Question: Vidyānanda Swami is said to have written a large text called 'Vidyānandamahodaya,' which he himself mentioned in his works like 'Shlokavarttika' and 'Ashtasahasri.' However, subsequent great Acharyas like Manikyanandi, Vadiraja, and Prabhachandra do not mention it. Does this mean it only existed during Vidyānanda's lifetime and was lost afterwards?
   • Answer: No, the text's existence is confirmed even after Vidyānanda's lifetime. Vādidevasuri, a famous scholar from the 12th-13th century Vikram era, quoted and critiqued a line from 'Vidyānandamahodaya' in his 'Syādvādaratnākara.' This proves the text was a subject of scholarly discussion and study for 300-400 years after Vidyānanda. The lack of mentions by later Acharyas might be due to limited copies or their specific focus. There's a possibility it might still exist in libraries, and researchers are encouraged to search for it, especially in Śvetāmbara scriptural collections, given their history of preserving texts. The discovery of an older, purer manuscript of 'Ashtasahasri' is cited as an example of the importance of preserving ancient texts.

2. The Existence of Anantavīrya's 'Pramāṇasangrahabhāṣya' or 'Pramāṇasangrahālaṅkāra':

   • Question: It is heard from scholars that the great Anantavīrya, the commentator of 'Siddhiviniścaya,' wrote a large commentary on Akalanka Deva's 'Pramāṇasangraha,' named 'Pramāṇasangrahabhāṣya' or 'Pramāṇasangrahālaṅkāra.' However, it is not available today. Are there any mentions that support this oral tradition and its significance?
   • Answer: Yes, there are mentions of 'Pramāṇasangrahabhāṣya' or 'Pramāṇasangrahālaṅkāra.' The commentator of 'Siddhiviniścaya' himself mentions it multiple times in his commentary, indicating its importance, novelty, and vastness. The answer lists several such references from the 'Siddhiviniścaya Tīkā.' The text laments the loss of such valuable works due to carelessness and urges scholars to actively search for them.

3. The Pre-dating of Nitya-nigoda and Itara-nigoda Descriptions:

   • Question: Are there descriptions of Nitya-nigoda and Itara-nigoda that are older than those found in Gommaṭasāra Jīvakāṇḍa and Dhavalā?
   • Answer: Yes. Akalanka Deva, in his 'Tattvārthavārtika,' provides descriptions of these categories. He defines Nitya-nigodas as those not capable of becoming trasa beings in any of the three times, and Anitya-nigodas as those who have become or will become trasa beings.

4. Akalanka Deva's Use of Ṣaṭkhaṇḍāgama in 'Tattvārthavārtika':

   • Question: In a previous article, it was stated that Akalanka Deva's 'Tattvārthavārtika' frequently translates sutras from Ṣaṭkhaṇḍāgama. Some scholars disagree, claiming he did not use Ṣaṭkhaṇḍāgama. Is their claim correct, and if so, how was the translation explained?
   • Answer: The answer strongly refutes the dissenting scholars by providing several explicit proofs. It quotes passages from 'Tattvārthavārtika' and demonstrates how they are Sanskrit translations or clear references to specific sutras from Ṣaṭkhaṇḍāgama (e.g., references to 'Satprapāraṇā' and 'Vargaṇā'). The conclusion is that Akalanka Deva extensively used Ṣaṭkhaṇḍāgama in his 'Tattvārthavārtika.'

5. The Age of Attaining Samyak-tva in Human Birth:

   • Question: It is said that Samyak-tva (right faith) can be attained even at the age of eight years in a human birth. Is there any scriptural evidence for this?
   • Answer: Yes, there is scriptural evidence. Akalanka Deva, in 'Tattvārthavārtika,' states that only those who have completed their development (paryāptaka) can attain Samyak-tva, not those who are still developing (aparyāptaka). Furthermore, this attainment happens only after the age of eight years, not before.

6. Digambara Monks' Travel After Sunset:

   • Question: If a Digambara monk is traveling and the sun sets, and there is no village or city nearby, will they stop there or continue?
   • Answer: They will stop at the place where the sun sets and will not proceed further. This is because monks are bound by the 'iryā-samiti' (caution in movement), and movement is not permissible after sunset. They only travel towards a town or village after sunrise. This is supported by a verse from Vārangacharitam by Acharya Jatāsinhanandi. The text also quotes Mūlācāra, stating that monks remain detached from their bodies and stop where the sun sets, not expecting anything and remaining free like lightning.

7. Monks Staying in One Place for Extended Periods (like Acharya Shanti Sagar):

   • Question: It is commonly believed that Digambara Jain monks can stay in one place for one day and night, or a maximum of five days and nights, except during the rainy season (Chaturmas), after which they must move. This is considered a principle from scriptures. Why then did Acharya Shanti Sagar Maharaj stay in Sholapur city with his Sangha for an entire year? Is there an exception?
   • Answer: The general rule stated by people is correct: monks stay in a village for one night and in a city for five nights, as per scriptures like Mūlācāra and Vārangacharitam. However, the text notes that scriptures do not mention or permit staying in a village or city for years. It delves into the 'Bhagavati Ārādhanā' and its commentaries, which discuss the duration of stay. These texts mention exceptions for specific purposes like scriptural study, heavy rainfall, inability to travel, or rendering service, allowing for extended stays (up to 36 days more than the usual limit). The Tenth Sthitikappa allows for 120 days in one place during Chaturmas, with exceptions for specific reasons. However, there is no exception mentioned for staying for years. The text concludes by questioning the basis of Acharya Shanti Sagar Maharaj's year-long stay in Sholapur and urges the Sangha to clarify their stance to prevent the spread of laxity among monks.

8. The Correctness of "Arihant" vs. "Arhant":

   • Question: Between the terms "Arihant" and "Arhant," which one is pure and which is impure?
   • Answer: Both terms are pure. Ancient scriptures provide etymological meanings for both, accepting both as pure. Acharya Virasena in the Dhavalā commentary of Ṣaṭkhaṇḍāgama explains that "Ari" refers to the enemy of delusion, whom one destroys, hence "Arihant." Alternatively, "Ari" refers to the four destructive karmas (Jñānāvaraṇa, Darśanāvaraṇa, Mohaniya, Antarāya), whom one destroys. Upon the destruction of these, the non-destructive karmas also become powerless. Thus, by destroying the enemy of all karmas, the appellation "Arihant" is attained. The term "Arhant" or "Arhanta" is derived from being worthy of worship and adoration, as they are worshipped by Indra and others during auspicious events like birth. While both are pure, "Arihant" is more appropriate for chanting in the Namokar Mantra, as it is the original text found in Ṣaṭkhaṇḍāgama and has the earliest commentary. It also directly signifies terms like Jin, Jinendra, and Vītarāga. The commentary on Āvaśyaka Niryukti by Bhadrabāhu also prioritizes the explanation of "Arihant."

9. Marichi's Pride and Subsequent Rebirths:

   • Question: When Marichi (son of Bharata) heard from Lord Adinath that he would be the last Tirthankara, he became proud and behaved freely, leading him to various lower births. Is this pride mentioned in ancient scriptures?
   • Answer: Yes, it is mentioned. Besides Jinatīrtha's 'Ādipurāṇa,' Bhadrabāhu's 'Āvaśyaka Niryukti' also records Marichi's pride, quoting his words of arrogance.

10. The Difference Between Pūjā and Archā:

    • Question: What is the difference between 'Pūjā' and 'Archā'? Are they the same?
    • Answer: While generally used interchangeably as synonyms, there is a subtle difference. Acharya Virasena in the Dhavalā commentary of Ṣaṭkhaṇḍāgama explains that 'Archā' involves expressing devotion through offerings like 'charu' (offering of grains), 'bali' (grains, usually rice), flowers, fruits, perfumes, incense, and lamps. 'Pūjā,' however, includes these offerings along with grand celebrations and displays of religious glory like 'Aindradhvaja' (Indra's flag), 'Kalpavriksha' (wish-fulfilling tree), 'Mahamah' (great festival), and 'Sarvatobhadra' (auspicious symbol). In essence, 'Archā' is a brief expression of devotion through material offerings, while 'Pūjā' is a grander display of devotion with ceremonies and public events. The text notes that festivals like Indradhvaja were established long before Virasena and played a significant role in propagating Jainism.

11. The Origin of a Specific Verse:

    • Question: Which text is the original source of the following verse, and where is it located? (Verse: Sukhāmlādanākāraṁ vijñānaṁ meybodhanam | Śaktiḥ kriyānumeyā syādyūnaḥ kāntāsamāgame ||)
    • Answer: This verse is quoted in many texts. Acharya Vidyānanda cited it in 'Ashtasahasri.' Acharya Abhayadeva, in his commentary on 'Sanmatī-sūtra,' quoted it, using it as an example to explain that qualities are simultaneous while modifications are sequential. Large Anantavīrya, in his commentary on 'Siddhiviniścaya,' also referenced it. While these references suggest it might have been used by Akalanka Deva in his 'Nyāyavinishchaya' for illustration, the verse is not found in the original 'Nyāyavinishchaya.' It might have been in his commentary. If it was quoted, it predates Akalanka. Vādirāja, in his commentary on 'Nyāyavinishchaya,' quotes it with reference to 'Syādvādamahārṇava,' an unavailable Jain philosophical text. This suggests the verse is well-known and ancient. It's possible Akalanka Deva himself quoted it from 'Syādvādamahārṇava' in his own commentary.

12. The Relationship Between Samantabhadra and Kumārila Bhaṭṭa:

    • Question: Modern scholars state that the famous Mimāṁsaka Kumārila Bhaṭṭa composed the following kārikās in his 'Mīmāṁsā-śloka-vārtika' based on Samantabhadra Swami's kārikās from 'Āptamīmāṁsā' (e.g., 'Ghaṭamauḷisuvarnārthī'). Therefore, Samantabhadra Swami is much older than Kumārila Bhaṭṭa. Is there any ancient evidence supporting this claim? (Kumārila's kārikās are provided.)
    • Answer: Yes, there is supporting evidence. Acharya Vādirāja Sūri, a renowned scholar from 1025 CE, in his 'Nyāyavinishchaya Vivaraṇa,' makes an unambiguous reference: "Said by Swami Samantabhadra, the Bhatta, who followed him, also..." (followed by the quoted kārikās from both). The use of the term 'tadupajīvinā' (who followed him) by Vādirāja clearly indicates that even 900 years ago, Kumārila was considered a follower or dependent on Samantabhadra Swami in this matter. This reference provides irrefutable and authentic proof for scholars who place Samantabhadra Swami before Kumārila and his critic Dharmakīrti.

In essence, the text serves as a valuable resource for clarifying scriptural interpretations, historical authenticity of texts and authors, and the practical application of Jain monastic code, addressing common academic and devotional queries.