Bhikshu Jamali Aur Bahurat Drushtivad

Here's a comprehensive summary in English of the provided Jain text, "Bhikshu Jamali aur Bahurat Drushtivad" by Sushilmuni:

The book excerpt delves into a significant philosophical debate during the era of Lord Mahavir, specifically concerning the nature of truth and language. It highlights the intellectual fervor of that period, where thinkers were deeply engaged in establishing unique perspectives and principles.

The central figure in this discussion is Jamali, a prominent disciple of Lord Mahavir. Jamali was also Lord Mahavir's nephew and son-in-law, having married his daughter, Priyadarshana. Jamali, along with 500 princes, and Priyadarshana, along with 1000 companions, had embraced asceticism under Lord Mahavir.

The conflict arises about fourteen years after Lord Mahavir attained Kevala Gyana (omniscience). While resting in a grove, Jamali instructed his disciples to prepare his bedding. When he arrived, he found the process ongoing, despite his disciples' affirmation that it was done. Jamali, adhering to a strict interpretation of truth, questioned how they could claim the task was complete when it was still in progress.

The disciples explained that this was in line with Lord Mahavir's principle of "chalmane chalita" (while moving, considered moved) and similar statements like "nijjarmane nijjarie" (while shedding, considered shed). This principle suggests that an action should be considered as completed once its process has begun and is in motion.

Jamali, however, disagreed. He argued that an action cannot be declared finished until it is fully completed and its objective is met. He believed that stating otherwise was a form of untruth. This fundamental difference in interpretation led to a divergence of views.

The debate spread among Jamali's disciples and Priyadarshana's female disciples. Priyadarshana initially supported Jamali's viewpoint. However, an incident soon changed her perspective. While staying at the home of a potter named Dhank, who adhered to Lord Mahavir's philosophy, Dhank deliberately dropped a burning ember onto Priyadarshana's sari. She cried out, "My sari has burnt!" Dhank countered by reminding her of Jamali's principle, arguing that since only a portion of the sari was burnt, she couldn't declare it "burnt" until the entire sari was consumed. This practical demonstration profoundly impacted Priyadarshana, making her realize the limitations of Jamali's rigid adherence to absolute completion.

Consequently, Priyadarshana and other female disciples rejoined Lord Mahavir's sangha (community). Many monks who were not entirely convinced by Jamali's arguments also followed suit. However, Jamali remained steadfast in his conviction, and his continued contemplation led to the development of "Bahurat Drushtivad" (the doctrine of considering something done when a significant portion or the majority of the action is complete).

Jamali's philosophy emphasizes that an action should only be called "done" when the objective is largely or entirely fulfilled. He drew arguments from everyday behavior, such as not declaring oneself "finished eating" until the meal is completely consumed, or "finished traveling" until the destination is reached. He believed that stating an action is complete before its full realization was a departure from truth in practical terms.

The author then discusses the challenges of expressing absolute truth through language. Language, being inherently limited, often struggles to perfectly convey profound internal states or experiences. The difficulty of speaking the truth, especially when making a vow to do so, is highlighted.

The text then contrasts Jamali's "Bahurat Drushtivad" with Lord Mahavir's nuanced understanding of time and action. Lord Mahavir emphasized the extreme subtlety of time, defining the smallest indivisible unit as "samaya." He illustrated this by stating that countless "samayas" pass with a mere blink of an eye. He presented a vast enumeration of temporal units, from "avalika" to "shiraprahelika," to illustrate the immeasurable nature of time.

Lord Mahavir's argument against Jamali's stance is presented through examples like cutting cloth or eating food. He posits that even the initial act of cutting a thread or consuming a single morsel is a step towards completion. If we deny the completion of these initial stages, how can we then claim the entire action is completed? Lord Mahavir argued that the principle of considering an action complete upon its commencement applies to all spheres, including experiences, death, cutting, tearing, and so forth.

A practical example is given: if someone sets out for America, and a friend asks where they are going, it's acceptable to say "going to America," even if they are still en route. This is understood as a practical convention based on the ultimate objective.

The excerpt then connects Lord Mahavir's principle to the karmic realm and the attainment of liberation. In the context of karma, Lord Mahavir's philosophy suggests that an action initiated in the first moment is considered to have progressed towards its fruition in subsequent moments. Experiencing karmic particles is considered to be their fruition, and engaging in the cycle of karma is seen as a step towards liberation. The shedding of karmic matter is considered to be the act of shedding, and so on.

The author concludes by acknowledging Jamali's significant contribution. He states that while Lord Mahavir's insights into the subtleties of truth and karma were profound, Jamali's insistence on "Bahurat Drushtivad" served a crucial purpose. It challenged the prevailing understanding and, by doing so, compelled a deeper exploration and clarification of Lord Mahavir's own principles, ultimately leading to a more comprehensive understanding of truth. The author expresses gratitude to both Jamali for his challenging yet illuminating perspective and to Lord Mahavir for his profound and illuminating exposition of truth.