Avashyak Sutrana Karta Kon

This document is an excerpt from a Jain text discussing the authorship of the Avashyak Sutra. The author, Sukhlal Sanghavi, presents his research and arguments regarding this topic, primarily in response to differing opinions and critiques.

Here's a comprehensive summary:

1. Introduction and Context:

• Previous Publication: The author refers to a Hindi publication of "Hindi Panchpratikraman" six years prior, which was well-received and distributed. Despite its popularity, the author felt it didn't fully satisfy him.
• Motivation for Research: The author's initial aim in writing the Hindi preface was to explain the fundamental principles of the Avashyak, to consider its historical period and author, and to compare Jain practices with non-Jain daily rituals using a comparative methodology.
• Personal Reflection on Success: The author defines success not by popularity or imitation, but by personal intellectual satisfaction. He admits his previous work didn't fully achieve this, but he stands by his effort in exploring the subject.

2. Key Points of Contention:

The author identifies two main areas of disagreement with conservative Jain scholars and householders regarding his earlier work:

• Authorship of the Avashyak Sutra: His view on who authored the Avashyak Sutra.
• Comparative Methodology: His method of comparing Jain daily rituals (Avashyak Kriya) with non-Jain daily rituals (Nityakarma).

3. Defense of the Comparative Methodology:

• Universality of Comparison: The author argues that the comparative method is becoming increasingly universal and there's no reason to fear it. If Jain practices are indeed superior, comparison can demonstrate this.
• Proving Superiority: He believes that without comparison, claims of superiority are merely self-proclaimed.
• Historical Precedent: The author points out that even in ancient Jain traditions, comparisons were implicitly made during lectures. The difference lies in the modern approach, which aims for a more balanced and less biased comparison.
• Acceptance of New Ideas: He questions why Jain tradition should cling to everything old and refuse new methods. If comparative methodology is gaining acceptance, then applying it to the Avashyak is important.
• Jainism's Broadness: The author highlights Jainism's liberal and truth-seeking nature, which doesn't discriminate based on caste, country, time, or custom. He sees the comparison of Jain Avashyak with non-Jain rituals as a virtue, not a fault.

4. Arguments Regarding the Authorship of the Avashyak Sutra:

The core of the discussion revolves around the author's assertion that the entire Avashyak Sutra is not authored by the Ganadharas (direct disciples of Lord Mahavir), but by other ancient and respected Shrutaviras (senior scholars who possessed extensive scriptural knowledge).

• Umaswati's Tattvartha Bhashya:

  • The author cites Umaswati's Tattvartha Bhashya, which distinguishes between Anga-pravishta (part of the Angas) and Anga-bahya (outside the Angas) scriptures.
  • Umaswati lists six Avashyak activities (Samayika, Chaturvimsati-stava, Vandana, Pratikramana, Kayotsarga, and Pratyakhyana) as Anga-bahya.
  • The author interprets Umaswati's explanation of the difference between Anga-pravishta and Anga-bahya. Umaswati states that Anga-pravishta was composed by the Ganadharas based on the Tirthankara's teachings, while Anga-bahya was composed by Acharyas who were immediate successors to the Ganadharas, due to the lesser capabilities of later disciples.
  • The author considers Umaswati's statement particularly ancient and important, arguing that if Umaswati believed the Avashyak was by Ganadharas, he wouldn't have categorized it as "later than Ganadharas."
  • He emphasizes Umaswati's deep knowledge of Agamas and his proximity to Mahavir's time as reasons to trust his classification.

• Siddhasena Gani's Commentary:

  • The author analyzes the commentary of Siddhasena Gani on Umaswati's Bhashya. He notes that Siddhasena Gani, following earlier commentaries, interprets "Ganadharanantarya" (those immediately after Ganadharas) as referring to Acharyas like Jambuswami and Prabhava, implying that the Anga-bahya scriptures, including the Avashyak, were composed by them.
  • This, according to the author, further supports his view that the Avashyak is not by the Ganadharas themselves but by their immediate successors.

• Yashovijayji's Commentary:

  • The author notes that Yashovijayji, a prominent scholar, also accepts the same view as Umaswati and Siddhasena Gani. Yashovijayji explicitly categorizes the six studies within the Avashyak as the "Avashyak Shrutaskandha" and states it was composed by Acharyas like Jambuswami, who came after the Ganadharas.

• Senaprashna:

  • The author refers to the Senaprashna, a text that addresses questions about the authorship of scriptures. It states that Anga-pravishta scriptures were created by the Ganadharas, while Anga-bahya scriptures like the Avashyak were created by Shrutasthaviras (senior scriptural authorities).
  • The Senaprashna further clarifies that while the Laghu Sutra within the Avashyak might be attributed to Bhadrabahuswami, other Avashyak Sutras are by different Shrutasthaviras.

• Countering Opposing Arguments:

  • The author addresses arguments from the Gujarati translation of Vishēṣāvasyak Bhāṣya, which claim the Avashyak was composed by Lord Mahavir and the Ganadharas.
  • He meticulously analyzes verses from the Vishēṣāvasyak Sutra and its commentary, arguing that these verses do not support the idea of Ganadhara authorship of the Avashyak Sutra itself. Instead, they discuss the divine origin of the practice of the Avashyak and its reception by the Ganadharas.
  • He refutes the interpretation that the verses refer to the creation of the textual Avashyak by the Ganadharas, emphasizing that the focus is on the teachings and adoption of the principles.

5. Conclusion and Future Research:

• Summary of Evidence: The author concludes that the evidence from Tattvartha Bhashya, Siddhasena Gani, Yashovijayji, and Senaprashna strongly suggests that the entire Avashyak Shrutaskandha is not the creation of the Ganadharas, but rather of other ancient and respected Shrutaviras.
• No Definitive Single Author: He also suggests that the various sutras within the Avashyak might not all have a single author. It's possible that some were composed by Acharyas like Jambuswami and Prabhava, and perhaps even some by the Ganadharas themselves.
• Call for Further Research: The author acknowledges that his current research focuses on the comprehensive Avashyak Shrutaskandha and the available evidence only proves it's not entirely by the Ganadharas. He calls upon scholars and historians to investigate further:
  • Which Avashyak-related sutras were in practice during Mahavir's time?
  • When were new sutras added and which ones?
  • Which ancient sutras were replaced or modified?
  • Who authored each ancient and later sutra?
• Openness to Reconsideration: He expresses an open mind and willingness to consider any clear scriptural evidence that definitively proves the entire Avashyak Sutra is the work of the Ganadharas.

In essence, Sukhlal Sanghavi presents a well-researched argument challenging the traditional view that the Avashyak Sutra was solely composed by the Ganadharas. He advocates for a more nuanced understanding, attributing its creation to a lineage of ancient scholars who followed the direct disciples of Lord Mahavir, while remaining open to specific sutras potentially being the work of the Ganadharas themselves.