Aradhanapataka Aur Virbhadra

This document, titled "Aradhanapataka aur Virbhadra" by Punyavijay, published by Punyavijayji, primarily aims to clarify the author of the Aradhanapataka and its relation to a figure named Virbhadra, addressing a previous statement in the journal 'Jain Hiteshi' that suggested the author of Aradhanapataka might be a Digambara acharya named Virbhadra.

The author, Punyavijay, disputes this claim based on his thorough examination of the Aradhanapataka. He argues that the author of Aradhanapataka is a Shvetambara scholar.

Here's a breakdown of Punyavijay's arguments:

1. Shared Authorship with Bhaktaparigna:

• Punyavijay points out that the Aradhanapataka references the Bhaktaparigna (a Prakrit text) and states that the method of Aradhana described in Aradhanapataka is the same as that in Bhaktaparigna. This strongly suggests that both texts were authored by the same person.
• The Aradhanapataka discusses two types of parinirmana (mortal contemplation/death): savichara (with thought) and avichara (without thought). The avichara-parinirmana is said to be described in Bhaktaparigna, while the savichara-parinirmana is detailed in the Aradhanapataka. This further solidifies the connection.

2. References to Shvetambara Practices:

• The Aradhanapataka mentions the "fourteen types of upadhi (possessions/aids) prescribed for Sthavira (elder monks) according to the scripture." Punyavijay asserts that such a description of upadhi would not be found in a Digambara acharya's work.
• Furthermore, a verse in the Aradhanapataka describes how monks wearing "old, torn, and soiled clothes" are still considered achela (nude). Punyavijay argues that this concept, particularly the mention of wearing soiled clothes while still being considered nude, is characteristic of Shvetambara interpretations and not Digambara ones.

3. Compilation Nature of Aradhanapataka:

• Punyavijay notes that the Aradhanapataka incorporates a significant number of verses directly from other texts, including Bhaktaparigna (114 out of 170 verses), Pindaniyukti, Avashyak Niryukti, and commentaries on Avashyak. This leads him to conclude that Aradhanapataka can be accurately described as a "collection text" (sangraha grantha).

4. Virbhadra and Chatuhsharana:

• The article addresses the mention of another acharya named Virbhadra, the author of the Shvetambara text Chatuhsharana. The commentator of Chatuhsharana identifies this Virbhadra as a disciple of Mahavira.
• Punyavijay observes that the concluding verses of Chatuhsharana, Bhaktaparigna, and Aradhanapataka all contain similar phrases referring to "Jinvira" or "Jinveera," suggesting that the authors of these three works are likely the same individual.
• However, he cautions that the identification of the Chatuhsharana author as a direct disciple of Mahavira might be based on mere tradition or hearsay, as there isn't much specific biographical information available about Virbhadra beyond this.

5. A Second Aradhanapataka:

• The document also introduces a second text titled Aradhanapataka. This version is in Prakrit, lacks an author's name, has thirty-two dvaras (sections), and contains 993 verses.
• Punyavijay confirms that this second Aradhanapataka is also Shvetambara. He cites a verse from its Sukritanumodana Dvara (section of approval of good deeds) that mentions the study of scripture and the practice of pratilekhana (examination of robes) according to established norms. He states that the "yoga-vahana" (application or ritualistic use) of Anga and Anga scriptures, as described, is not accepted by Digambara acharyas.
• This second Aradhanapataka is dated to after the 13th century CE, as it includes three verses on the "Guru-vandan-bhashya" of Devendrasuri, a scholar who lived in the 13th century.

In conclusion, Punyavijay definitively asserts, based on textual evidence and references to specific Shvetambara practices and other Shvetambara texts, that the Aradhanapataka discussed in the 'Jain Hiteshi' article, and its related texts, were authored by a Shvetambara scholar, and not a Digambara acharya. He also notes the existence of a second Aradhanapataka which is also Shvetambara. The author concludes by expressing gratitude to Muni Shri Jasvijayji for gathering the books related to Aradhanapataka.