Dharmna Darwajane Jovani Disha Athva Tattvatattva Vichar

This document is a critique of a Jain text titled "Dharmna Darwajane Jovani Disha Athva Tattvatattva Vichar" (Direction to See the Door of Dharma or Consideration of True and Untrue Principles), compiled by Amarmuni. The critique itself is written by Amarvijay Jain Pathshala, based in Shirshala, Amalner, and printed by Satya Vijay Press in Ahmedabad. The critique was published in Veer Samvat 2434, Samvat 1964, and AD 1907.

The critique is extensive and delves deeply into what the author perceives as errors and deviations from core Jain principles in Amarmuni's compiled work. The critique can be broadly summarized by the following key areas of contention and discussion:

I. Core Argument and Critique:

• Critique of "Dharmna Darwajane Jovani Disha" by Amarmuni: The author of the critique argues that Amarmuni's compilation, while titled "The Door of Dharma," is haphazardly arranged, deviates from Jain principles, and ultimately creates confusion rather than providing clarity.
• Challenging the Author and Publisher: The critique identifies the author and publisher as the same person, based on the dedication. It questions the author's understanding and reliance on authentic Jain scriptures, accusing them of misinterpreting and misrepresenting them.
• Criticism of the "Dhundhiya" Sect: A significant portion of the critique focuses on what the author identifies as the "Dhundhiya" sect's (presumably a specific reformist or dissenting sect within Jainism) misinterpretations of Jain tenets. The critique asserts that the Dhundhiya sect, despite their claims of progressing beyond traditional scholars, often errs by making sweeping statements without proper scriptural grounding and by disrespecting ancient Jain acharyas and Ganadharas.

II. Specific Areas of Contentious Discussion (as per the Index and content):

• Samayaktva (Right Faith/Perception):
  • The critique thoroughly analyzes Amarmuni's classification of Samayaktva into nine types, questioning their scriptural basis and demanding citations.
  • It argues that scripture recognizes only a few primary types of Samayaktva (e.g., based on substance and state, or certainty and doubt), and other classifications are subdivisions based on "vivaksha" (intention/perspective).
  • The author directly refutes Amarmuni's explanations of various types of Samayaktva like "Nisharg," "Upadesh," "Rohak," "Deepak," and "Karak," contrasting them with scriptural understanding and pointing out alleged misinterpretations and fabrications.
• The Twenty-Five "Bol" (Principles/Aspects):
  • The critique challenges Amarmuni's presentation of the twenty-five "bol" (which are often related to epistemological categories like Nayas and Nikshepas). The author criticizes Amarmuni for applying these categories indiscriminately to all topics, asserting that they should be applied contextually and according to specific scriptural divisions.
  • A significant portion is dedicated to refuting Amarmuni's understanding of the four Nikshepas (Name, Establishment, Substance, State), particularly as applied to concepts like "Arhant" and "Sutra." The critique argues that Amarmuni misrepresents the scope and meaning of Nikshepas, accusing him of distorting the scriptural application, especially concerning the "Dravya" and "Bhava" Nikshepas.
  • The author defends the scriptural validity of Nikshepas and their application, asserting that Amarmuni's interpretations are flawed and based on a lack of understanding.
• The Seven Nayas (Standpoints/Ways of Looking at Reality):
  • The critique disputes Amarmuni's explanation of the seven Nayas, particularly his application and categorization.
  • It highlights instances where Amarmuni is accused of mixing different Nayas or misapplying them, leading to incorrect conclusions. The author defends the nuanced understanding of Nayas as presented in canonical texts like the Anuyogadvara Sutra.
• The Four Pramanas (Means of Valid Knowledge):
  • The critique strongly refutes Amarmuni's presentation of four Pramanas (Pratyaksha, Anumana, Upama, Agama), stating that Jainism primarily accepts two: Pratyaksha (direct perception) and Paroksha (indirect perception). The author accuses Amarmuni of borrowing from non-Jain philosophical systems.
  • It cites scriptures like the Nandi Sutra and Vishēshāvaśyaka Sutra to support the Jain view of two Pramanas.
• The Meaning of "Chetya" and Idol Worship:
  • The critique engages in a lengthy discussion defending the validity of idol worship and the scriptural basis for "Chetya" (objects of reverence, often interpreted as idols). It refutes Amarmuni's attempts to dismiss "Chetya" as merely symbolic or not directly related to the divine.
  • The author provides scriptural references from texts like Vichāra Chulīya, Vipaaka Sutra, and Bhagavati Sutra to demonstrate the historical and scriptural acceptance of reverence for forms and symbols.
• Critique of Amarmuni's Approach to Scripture and Acharyas:
  • Throughout the text, the author accuses Amarmuni of selectively quoting, misinterpreting, and disrespecting the words of ancient Jain scholars and scriptures.
  • The critique emphasizes the importance of "Guru Parampara" (lineage of teachers) and proper understanding of scriptures, accusing Amarmuni of lacking both.
• The "Dhundhiya" Sect's Practices and Beliefs: The critique often refers to Amarmuni's views as representative of the "Dhundhiya" sect and criticizes their practices, such as rejecting idol worship and misinterpreting "Daya" (compassion/non-violence).

III. Rhetorical Style and Tone:

• Strongly Critical and Rebuttal-Oriented: The tone of the critique is highly critical, often accusatory, and aims to dismantle Amarmuni's arguments point by point.
• Use of Scriptural Citations: The critique frequently refers to and quotes from Jain scriptures (like Anuyogadvara Sutra, Nandi Sutra, Vichāra Chulīya, Vipaaka Sutra, Bhagavati Sutra) to support its counter-arguments.
• Accusations of Ignorance and Deliberate Misrepresentation: The author repeatedly accuses Amarmuni of ignorance, arrogance, and deliberate misrepresentation of Jain principles for personal gain or sectarian agenda.
• Emphasis on Tradition and Authority: The critique places a strong emphasis on the authority of ancient scriptures, respected acharyas, and the traditional understanding of Jain philosophy.

IV. Purpose of the Critique:

The primary purpose of this extensive critique is to warn Jain readers against what the author considers to be misleading and heretical teachings within Amarmuni's book. It aims to uphold the traditional understanding of Jainism, particularly as it relates to right faith (Samayaktva), the correct application of Nayas and Nikshepas, the validity of idol worship, and the revered status of ancient acharyas.

In essence, the document is a detailed theological and philosophical debate within Jainism, where the author (representing a more traditionalist viewpoint) rigorously challenges and refutes the interpretations presented in Amarmuni's work, deeming them as deviations from authentic Jain doctrine.