Bharatiya Darshan Ke Sandarbh Me Jain Mahakavyo Dwara Vivechit

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text in English:

Book Title: Bharatiya Darshan ke Sandarbh me Jain Mahakavyo dwara Vivechit Madhyakalin Jaineṭar Darshanik Vad (Jaina Epic Discussions on Medieval Non-Jain Philosophical Doctrines in the Context of Indian Philosophy) Author: Dr. Mohanchand Publisher: Z_Deshbhushanji_Maharaj_Abhinandan_Granth_012045.pdf

This academic paper, authored by Dr. Mohanchand, explores the philosophical landscape of medieval India as depicted through the lens of Jain Mahakavyas (Jain Epics). It delves into how these Jain epics engaged with, critiqued, and contextualized various non-Jain philosophical schools prevalent during that era, all within the broader framework of Indian philosophical development.

The paper begins by tracing the origins of philosophical inquiry in India back to the Vedas, acknowledging that while not primarily philosophical texts, they contain the earliest explorations of fundamental questions about the universe, its creator, and its causality. The Vedic worldview, while centered on rituals and deity worship, displayed a curiosity about creation's mysteries. Early Vedic thinkers grappled with concepts like the primordial cause, even questioning the existence of "being" or "non-being" before creation. This led to the idea of a singular, subtle, conscious entity capable of creation through "tapas" (austerity), and later to the concept of Hiranyagarbha, the golden embryo, and the anthropomorphic cosmic Purusha.

The text then moves to the Upanishadic period, highlighting the development of concepts like Brahman, Atman, and Maya. However, it emphasizes that the Upanishadic thinkers were not alone in their philosophical endeavors. They faced intellectual challenges from rival schools that posited alternative causes for creation, such as Time (Kalavada), Nature (Svabhavavada), Destiny (Niyativada), Chance (Yadrucchavada), and the elements (Bhutavada). This intellectual diversity, the paper notes, led to a divergence of philosophical thought.

A significant portion of the paper discusses the classification of Indian philosophical schools into "Astika" (orthodox, accepting Vedic authority) and "Nastika" (heterodox, rejecting Vedic authority), with Jainism, Buddhism, and Charvaka often categorized as Nastika. However, Dr. Mohanchand challenges this rigid classification, citing the views of Jain scholars like Haribhadra Suri (8th century CE) who considered Jain and Buddhist philosophies as fundamental. He also points out that the acceptance of Vedic authority by Jain scholar Somadeva (10th century CE) weakens the argument for Jainism's "Nastika" label based solely on Vedic rejection. The author further questions the self-sufficiency of even Astika schools like Sankhya and Vedanta in solely defending Vedic authority, suggesting that their philosophical tenets sometimes diverged from or found Vedic rituals insufficient for ultimate liberation. The paper concludes that using Vedic authority as a sole criterion for classifying philosophical systems is not a rational basis.

The paper then examines the influence of Jainism on the development of Vedic traditions, particularly regarding karma-vada (the theory of action and its consequences). It suggests that the Vedic tradition, initially rooted in ritual, adopted karma-vada, perhaps even influenced by the indigenous tribal beliefs of India. The text posits that Jainism, which has always opposed theism and supported karma-vada, views creation as eternal. It argues that the concept of karma-vada in the Upanishads, concerning the existence of the worldly soul, might have been influenced by Jain beliefs. The author acknowledges that the historical transmission of karma-vada, whether from Vedic Aryans to indigenous tribes or vice versa, remains a subject of historical investigation.

The paper then shifts to the philosophical state of Jainism leading up to the era of Mahavira and Buddha. It describes the emergence of distinct philosophical schools, with Buddhism advocating "Pratītyasamutpāda" (dependent origination) and accepting "pudgala" (matter) as the agent and experiencer of karma, without necessarily positing a soul's continuity across lifetimes. Jainism, through its anekantavada (non-absolutism), posits that multiple factors, including time, nature, destiny, past karma, and human effort, contribute to creation, with karma primarily applicable to spiritual creation, while material creation is considered self-generated.

The paper highlights the post-Upanishadic development of various philosophical schools, including Vedanta, Sankhya, Nyaya, and Vaisheshika, as well as different branches of Buddhism. It emphasizes the period as a "pramāṇa vyavasthā" (system of valid cognition) era, where Jain philosophy was presented with a fact-gathering and logical style, influenced by the work of Buddhist logicians like Nagarjuna, Vasubandhu, and Dignaga. Jain scholars like Siddhasena and Samantabhadra played a crucial role in synthesizing these diverse views within the anekantavada framework.

The core of the paper then details the specific non-Jain philosophical doctrines discussed and critiqued in Jain Mahakavyas. These include:

• Kalavada (Time Doctrine): The belief that time is the sole cause of all phenomena. Jain critiques highlight instances of untimely occurrences and argue that positing time as the creator negates the efficacy of a conscious agent.
• Niyativada (Fatalism): The view that destiny controls all events. Jain critiques argue this negates the existence and consequences of actions, rendering individuals free from pleasure and pain, which is undesirable.
• Svabhavavada (Naturalism): The belief that things transform according to their inherent nature. Critiques point out that this eliminates the accountability for one's actions and the concept of karma, and that natural transformations often require specific conditions.
• Yadrucchavada (Chance Doctrine): The belief in random causation, where anything can arise from anything without a fixed cause-and-effect. The paper notes a lack of extensive Jain critique on this in some Mahakavyas.
• Satkaryavada (Theory of Existing Effects): The Sankhya doctrine that effects pre-exist in their causes. Jain critiques question how the unmanifest Prakriti can produce manifest objects and find the Sankhya assertion of the soul as "akarta" (non-doer) illogical.
• Shunyavada (Voidism): The Buddhist doctrine that the world is essentially empty. Jain critiques argue this leads to the absence of knowledge itself and renders recipients of knowledge incapable.
• Kshanikavada (Momentariness): Another Buddhist doctrine stating that all things are momentary. Jain critiques argue this undermines the distinction between good and bad karma, the persistence of qualities, and concepts like memory, relationships, and moral accountability.
• Nairatmyavada (Anatmavada/No-Self Doctrine): The Buddhist denial of a soul. Jain critiques question the basis of Buddha's compassion without a self or consciousness.
• Vedic and Pauranic Theism: The belief in creation by divine beings like Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. Jain critiques argue that these doctrines undermine the principle of karma and that the gods themselves exhibit human frailties.
• Bhutavada (Materialism/Elementism): Associated with Charvakas, this doctrine denies the soul and afterlife, attributing existence to the combination of four elements. Critiques highlight the illogicality of denying the soul when it experiences pleasure and pain, and the fallacy of arguing that if elemental combination creates life, then everyday cooking vessels should also produce living beings.
• Mayavada (Illusionism): Different from Shankara's Mayavada, this doctrine asserts that the entire visible world is an illusion. Jain critiques reject the denial of objective reality and the idea that worldly pleasures are the ultimate pursuit while spiritual happiness is an illusion.
• Tattvopaplavavada (Rejection of Principles): A more extreme form of Charvaka that rejects even the existence of the four elements and direct perception. Jain critiques point out that denying the soul makes discussions of bondage and liberation meaningless, and that established principles are not simply to be discarded like old clothes.

In conclusion, Dr. Mohanchand argues that Jain Mahakavyas played a significant role in the development of Indian philosophical discourse by engaging with and critiquing various contemporary non-Jain schools. The authors of these epics aimed to present Jain philosophy within the context of these debates, often interpreting opposing views through the lens of Syadvada and Anekantavada, demonstrating that truth emerges from the rigorous examination and synthesis of different perspectives.