Ashokna Shilalekho Uper Drushtipat

Here's a comprehensive summary of the Jain text "Ashokna Shilalekho Uper Drushtipat" by Vijayendrasuri, based on the provided Gujarati text:

Book Title: Ashokna Shilalekho Uper Drushtipat (A Glimpse on Ashoka's Edicts) Author: Acharya Shri Vijayendrasuri Publisher: Shri Yashovijay Jain Granthmala Publication Year: V.S. 1992 (1936 CE)

Overview and Purpose:

This book, authored by the esteemed historian and philosopher Acharya Shri Vijayendrasuri, serves as a critical refutation of certain interpretations and theories presented by Dr. Tribhuvandas Shah, particularly concerning Emperor Ashoka and his inscriptions. The author aims to correct what he perceives as misinterpretations and "imaginary conjectures" that misrepresent historical facts and potentially harm the Jain community's understanding of its own heritage.

Key Arguments and Content:

The central thesis of the book is to dispute Dr. Tribhuvandas Shah's assertion that Ashoka's rock and pillar edicts are actually the edicts of Samprati Maharaja (Ashoka's grandson). Acharya Vijayendrasuri meticulously analyzes various aspects of Dr. Shah's arguments, pointing out perceived inaccuracies, faulty logic, and misinterpretations of Jain and Buddhist scriptures and historical evidence.

Detailed Breakdown of Critiques:

The book systematically deconstructs Dr. Shah's claims through detailed analysis of specific points:

1. The "Nigranth" Mention in Ashoka's Edicts: The author clarifies that Ashoka's edicts mention "Nigranth" (a term often associated with Jains) only once, and that too indirectly within the Delhi-Topra pillar inscription, mentioned alongside other religious sects. He argues that Dr. Shah exaggerates the significance of this single mention.

2. Misinterpretation of "Shvet": A significant portion of the book is dedicated to debunking Dr. Shah's interpretation of the word "Shvet" (white) in Ashoka's inscriptions.

   • Dr. Shah is criticized for connecting "Shvet" to the Shvetambara sect and then to the Digambara sect, arguing that the historical context and linguistic evidence do not support this.
   • The author strongly refutes Dr. Shah's interpretation of "Shvet" as simply meaning "white elephant," especially in the context of Ashoka's Girnar inscription and the broader understanding of Buddhist narratives about the Bodhisattva's conception.
   • He provides detailed comparative analysis of Buddhist texts (Jataka Commentary, Lalita Vistara, Mahavastu) and their interpretations by scholars like R.K. Mookerji and D.R. Bhandarkar to demonstrate the correct context of the "white elephant" symbolism in relation to Buddha's birth.
   • He also points out the number of tusks (four for Mahavira's mother, six for Buddha's mother) in the dream accounts, highlighting the inaccuracies in Dr. Shah's comparisons and generalizations.

3. Misattribution of Bharhut Stupa Imagery: The author challenges Dr. Shah's claim that the Maya Devi dream scene in the Bharhut Stupa depicts Samprati's mother's dream. He asserts that the imagery is clearly related to Buddha and not Samprati, providing geographical context and scholarly interpretations to support his argument. He criticizes Dr. Shah's incorrect geographical connections, such as equating Sanchi with Pavapuri.

4. Misinterpretation of Ashoka's Edicts (Rock Edict VIII, etc.):

   • The author refutes Dr. Shah's interpretation of Rock Edict VIII, arguing that Dr. Shah incorrectly links "Sambodhi" (enlightenment) to "Samkit" (right faith in Jainism) and misinterprets the concept of "Dharmayatra" (pilgrimage for righteousness) as related to Samprati's vows.
   • He corrects Dr. Shah's understanding of Ashoka's pilgrimage to Bodh Gaya, emphasizing the correct meaning of "Sambodhi" as supreme knowledge.

5. Misinterpretation of Jain and Buddhist Terminology: A significant portion of the book is dedicated to refuting Dr. Shah's claims that certain words found in Ashoka's edicts are exclusively Jain terms.

   • "Pākhanaḍ" (पाखंड): The author argues that "Pākhanaḍ" was prevalent in Buddhism as well, not exclusively Jain. He critiques Dr. Shah's reliance on outdated interpretations by scholars like H.H. Wilson.
   • "Vaguyuti" (वचगुति): He states that "Vaguyuti" is not present in Rock Edict VII and is found only in Edict XII. He links it to the Buddhist term "Vāgmonēya," meaning control over speech, and highlights that both Jains and Buddhists have concepts of "gupti" (control).
   • "Bhadanta" (भदंत): The author asserts that "Bhadanta" is not exclusively a Jain term and is also used in Buddhism as an honorific title for monks.
   • "Thera" (थेर): He corrects Dr. Shah's assertion that "Thera" is exclusively Jain, pointing out its use in Buddhism (Theravada) and its connection to "Sthavira" (elder monk). He cites scholarly works and Buddhist texts to support this.
   • "Dharmamangala" (धर्ममंगल): The author disputes Dr. Shah's etymology and interpretation of "Dharmamangala," clarifying its distinct meaning in Buddhism as distinct from worldly auspicious rites.
   • "Jiva, Bhuta, Prana, Satta" (जीव, भूत, प्राण, सत्त): He meticulously analyzes these terms, providing evidence from Jain and Buddhist texts (including Uvasagadasao commentary) to show that while the terms might have subtle differences in Jain philosophy, their usage in Ashoka's edicts should be understood in their broader context, and their exclusive Jain origin is not proven. He specifically addresses and corrects what he perceives as Dr. Shah's misrepresentation of Dr. Bhandarkar's views on these terms.

6. Misinterpretation of Rudradaman's Inscription: The author extensively critiques Dr. Shah's claims regarding the Girnar inscription of Rudradaman.

   • He refutes Dr. Shah's identification of "Vaisya Pushyagupta" with "Vishnugupta (Chanakya)" and criticizes the inaccurate readings of the inscription presented by Dr. Shah.
   • He clarifies the historical account of the Sudarshan Lake's construction and repairs, correcting Dr. Shah's timeline and attributions.
   • He strongly defends Rudradaman's historical significance and military prowess, countering Dr. Shah's portrayal of him as a minor king.
   • He argues that Dr. Shah's attempts to link Rudradaman's inscriptions to Samprati are based on flawed assumptions and lack of proper evidence.

7. Misinterpretation of the Bhabra Edict: The book strongly defends the Bhabra edict as an authentic edict of Emperor Ashoka.

   • The author refutes Dr. Shah's assertion that the Bhabra edict is not Buddhist and that the terms "Buddha," "Dhamma," and "Sangha" are not significant or are misused.
   • He provides extensive evidence from Ashoka's other edicts to show the repeated and significant use of these terms, particularly "Sangha" and "Buddha," thereby proving the Buddhist context of the Bhabra edict.
   • He also clarifies the meaning of the Buddhist canon mentioned in the Bhabra edict, countering Dr. Shah's claim that these texts are exclusively Jain.

8. Critique of Dr. Shah's Method and Intent: Throughout the book, Acharya Vijayendrasuri questions the methodology and underlying intent of Dr. Shah's work. He suggests that Dr. Shah's interpretations are driven by a desire to attribute all significant historical events and inscriptions to Jain rulers, thereby misrepresenting history and potentially causing harm to the Jain community's understanding of its past.

Conclusion:

Acharya Vijayendrasuri's "Ashokna Shilalekho Uper Drushtipat" is a scholarly rebuttal that aims to set the historical record straight. It challenges the specific interpretations of Dr. Tribhuvandas Shah regarding Ashoka's edicts and the broader historical context. The author meticulously dissects various claims, providing textual evidence and scholarly arguments to assert the traditional understanding of Ashoka's inscriptions and his role as a significant Buddhist monarch, while refuting attempts to misattribute them to Jain rulers like Samprati. The book emphasizes the importance of accurate historical research and understanding.