Granth Pariksha Part 01 - Book Summary

Here is a comprehensive summary in English of the Jain text "Granth Pariksha Part 01" by Jugalkishor Mukhtar, based on the provided pages:

Book Title: Granth Pariksha Part 01 (Book Examination, Part 01) Author: Jugalkishor Mukhtar Publisher: Jain Granth Ratnakar Karyalay, Bombay

This book is a collection of critical examinations of three Jain texts: Umaswami Shravakachar, Kundkund Shravakachar, and Jinsen Trivarnachar. The author, Jugalkishor Mukhtar from Devband, aims to shed light on the authenticity and origin of these texts, which are attributed to renowned Jain Acharyas.

Introduction (Pages 3-4): The introduction, written by Nathuram Premi, the publisher, highlights that the "Granth Pariksha" series has been appearing in the Jain Hitaishi magazine for about four years. Mukhtar's articles are presented as a new era for the Jain community, awakening those lost in the darkness of blind faith. Premi acknowledges the existence of both great selfless scholars and self-serving, fraudulent writers in Jainism, who pass off their concoctions under the names of great Mahatmas. This has led to the equal veneration of figures like Kundkund, Somesen, Samantabhadra, Jinsen (Bhattaraka), Pujyapada, and Shrutasagar. The publisher notes that people have lost the ability to discern, accepting any Sanskrit or Prakrit verse as the word of God. The "Granth Pariksha" series is intended to help Mahavir's followers recognize this error and protect themselves and their children from manipulative authors.

Premi expresses his long-held desire to publish these articles as a separate book to draw more attention to the subject. Despite the critical nature of the discussion, which was new and unconventional, they waited for scholarly opinions. After over three years with no significant opposition and many scholars acknowledging the accuracy of the critiques, they decided to proceed with publishing the series. The first volume contains examinations of Umaswami Shravakachar, Kundkund Shravakachar, and Jinsen Trivarnachar. The second volume will cover Bhadra Bahu Samhita. Future articles will be collected in a third volume. The first volume has been revised by the author himself. The book is published with the sole purpose of promoting unbiased and independent thought, making its price very low (approximately the cost of production). Readers are encouraged to promote it. The publisher also appeals to all Jain scholars to read the articles, share their independent opinions, and caution the public through lectures and newspapers about potentially problematic texts.

1. Umaswami Shravakachar (Pages 5-30):

Introduction of Umaswami: Umaswami (or Umasvati) is described as a highly respected scholar and disciple of Kundkund Muni. He is primarily known for his Tattvartha Sutra, which has numerous commentaries. His existence is estimated to be around the first century Vikram Samvat. The question of whether he authored other works besides Tattvartha Sutra is raised.
The Problem of Authenticity: The author introduces the text Umaswami Shravakachar and immediately questions whether this Shravakachar is indeed by the same Umaswami who wrote Tattvartha Sutra, or if it's by another person named Umaswami. The author was eager to see the text and is grateful to Sahu Jugalmandasji of Najibabad for providing a copy.
The Hindi Commentary by Halayudha: A Hindi commentary on this Shravakachar by a pundit named Halayudha is mentioned. Halayudha, in his commentary, criticizes texts like Sokshamargaprakash, Gyananand, Ratnakara Shravakachar (with Pandita Sadusukhji's commentary), and Viddhajana Bodhak as being ungrounded, fabricated, against scriptures, and contradictory. This suggests that Halayudha's commentary was written after these texts. The dates for Sadusukhji's commentary (1920 VS) and Viddhajana Bodhak (1939 VS) place Halayudha's commentary after 1939 VS.
Arguments for Umaswami's Authorship: Halayudha's commentary strongly asserts that the Shravakachar is by Umaswami, the Sutrakara, citing a verse (462) where the author states that the remaining conduct (avashishta samachar) not covered in the seventh sutra of the Tattvartha Sutra is detailed here. Halayudha forcefully dismisses any who believe otherwise as misguided, irreligious, and ignorant.
Arguments Against Umaswami's Authorship and Evidence of Plagiarism:
- Pandita Nathuramji Premi, based on various lists, suggests the text is by a different, lesser-known Umaswami. However, no information about this "Lesser Umaswami" is available.
- Crucially, no honorable ancient Acharya's work mentions this Shravakachar as being by the Umaswami of Tattvartha Sutra.
- The author meticulously points out that many verses in Umaswami Shravakachar are directly lifted or slightly modified from works by authors who lived centuries after the Umaswami of Tattvartha Sutra.
- Examples provided include verses from:
  - Purusharthasiddhi Upaya by Amritachandra Acharya (10th Century VS).
  - Yashastilaka by Somadeva Suri (11th Century VS).
  - Yogashastra by Hemachandra Acharya (12th Century VS).
  - Viveka Vilas by Jinadatta Suri (13th Century VS).
  - Dharma Sangraha Shravakachar by Pandita Medhavi (16th Century VS).
- The author provides specific verse numbers from the source texts and compares them with the verses in Umaswami Shravakachar, highlighting the direct borrowing or alteration.
Contradictory Statements within the Text:
- The text states that sakala vrata (complete vows) have 13 divisions and vikala vrata (partial vows) have 12. This contradicts the Tattvartha Sutra, which describes maha vratas (great vows) as having 5 divisions. The author speculates if panch samiti and trigupti might be included to reach 13, but these are not considered vratas in Tattvartha Sutra.
- The text mentions 70 aticharas (transgressions) of vows, which also contradicts the Tattvartha Sutra's count of 60.
- A verse claims bhogopabhoga parimana vrata (vow of limiting consumption and usage) is the third gunavrata (secondary vow), but earlier in the text, anarthadanda virati (abstinence from useless blame) was identified as the third gunavrata. This is seen as a potential borrowing error where the author forgot to change the description of the vow type.
Irrelevant and Out-of-Context Verse: A verse about loca (plucking out hair) as a sign of heroism, appearing without any preceding or succeeding context, is deemed uncharacteristic of Umaswami.
Unreasonable and Contradictory Statements:
- Flagless Temples: A verse states that worship, homa, and chanting in a temple without a flag are fruitless. This is considered illogical and lacking scriptural basis.
- Worn-out Clothes: Another verse claims that performing dana, worship, penance, homa, or svadhyaya in torn, faded, or dirty clothes is futile. This is also seen as against logic and scripture, as the efficacy of actions depends on internal devotion, not external appearance.
- Flower Worship: A verse states that tearing a champaka or kamala flower or splitting its bud incurs sin equivalent to killing a monk. This is considered a gross exaggeration and contrary to Jain principles, which differentiate the sin of killing a single-sensed organism from that of killing a monk.
Conclusion on Umaswami Shravakachar: The author concludes that Umaswami Shravakachar is not by the Umaswami of Tattvartha Sutra, nor by any other respected Jain Acharya. He suggests the author was ordinary, shortsighted, and of a petty heart. The text is estimated to have been created after the 16th century, possibly in the late 17th or early 18th century, after the establishment of the Terapanth sect. The author speculates that the emphasis on worship rituals in the text might have led Halayudha to call it "Puja Prakaran Namak Shravakachar."

2. Kundkund Shravakachar (Pages 30-49):

Introduction of Kundkund: Kundkund Acharya is presented as a highly influential leader, scholar, and revered Acharya, considered a disciple of Umaswami. His name is deeply ingrained in Jain society, even being invoked in daily shastra sabhas. His existence is estimated around the first century Vikram Samvat. Many authors, especially Bhattarakas, have claimed lineage from him.
The Problem of Authenticity: The text Kundkund Shravakachar is also attributed to Kundkund Acharya. While not as widely popular as his other works like Samaysar, it is found in various Jain libraries. However, the author questions its authenticity based on its literature.
Similarity to Viveka Vilas: The author reveals a striking similarity between Kundkund Shravakachar and Viveka Vilas, a work by Jinadatta Suri of the Shvetambara sect (13th Century VS). A comparison shows they are essentially the same text, with only minor differences in verses and numbering. The subject matter, verses, chapter numbering, initial benediction, and concluding verses are nearly identical.
Evidence of Plagiarism and Fabrication:
- The author details the verse differences between the two texts, suggesting that these discrepancies might be due to scribal errors.
- Crucially, the concluding verses and verses in the first chapter intentionally alter names. In Viveka Vilas, the author is Jinadatta Suri, and the text is named Viveka Vilas. In Kundkund Shravakachar, the author is presented as Kundkund Swami, disciple of Jinachandra Acharya, and the text is called Shravakachar.
- This deliberate alteration of names suggests that Viveka Vilas likely predates Kundkund Shravakachar, and the latter is a fabricated imitation.
- The author argues that if Kundkund Shravakachar were genuinely by Kundkund, then Viveka Vilas would be a copy. However, Kundkund lived over a thousand years before Jinadatta Suri, and there's no ancient record mentioning this Shravakachar. Conversely, Viveka Vilas is mentioned by the Vedic scholar Madhava Acharya in his Sarva Darshana Sangraha (12th Century VS). Furthermore, an ancient manuscript of Viveka Vilas exists in a Jain temple in Bombay, while no such ancient manuscript of Kundkund Shravakachar is found.
- The language of Kundkund Shravakachar is Sanskrit, whereas all known works of Kundkund Acharya are in Prakrit. This linguistic difference is significant.
- The benediction verse in Kundkund Shravakachar mentions bowing to Guru Jinachandra. This is absent in Kundkund's other widely accepted works. The name "Jinachandra" is derived by combining the first letters of a verse in Viveka Vilas.
Content Discrepancies and Uncharacteristic Statements:
- Misrepresentation of Shravak Dharma: The text is titled Shravakachar, but it lacks any description of the 11 pratimas (stages of spiritual development for laymen) or 12 vrata (vows) of shravakas. Kundkund himself described these in his Charitra Pahuḍ.
- Uncharacteristic View on Wealth: A verse criticizes those who call wealth fickle, implying they are foolish, ignorant, and unvirtuous. This contradicts the general spiritual outlook of eminent Jain Acharyas, including Kundkund, who often described wealth as transient and a source of attachment. This statement is attributed to Jinadatta Suri trying to please a prince.
- Incorporation of Non-Jain Beliefs:
  - A verse describes the placement of deities like Yaksha, Devi, Jinendra, Surya, Kartikeya, Krishna, Brahma, and Shiva Linga in temple parts. This is alien to Jain temple architecture and practices.
  - A verse claims that lying falsely in the name of monks, or for the sake of protecting life, or in the presence of deities and temples, incurs no sin. This is directly contrary to Jain ethics.
  - A verse states that valor, penance, knowledge, or wealth can make an unrefined person refined.
  - A verse promotes chewing betel leaf, associating it with prosperity like Shri Krishna.
  - A verse suggests that the essence of all religions is one, similar to how milk from cows of different colors is the same. This contradicts Jain philosophy's emphasis on the unique teachings of the Tirthankaras.
  - A verse similar to the one about flagless temples in Umaswami Shravakachar also appears here.
  - The text lists 18 "defects" or doshas as recognized by Shvetambara Jains (like Nidra, Bhaya, Rati, Arati, Rag, Dvesh, Moh, etc.), differing significantly from the 18 doshas accepted in Digambara tradition. This strongly indicates its Shvetambara origin.
Conclusion on Kundkund Shravakachar: The author definitively concludes that Kundkund Shravakachar is a fabricated text, a copy of Viveka Vilas by Jinadatta Suri, with deliberate alterations to names and titles. It is a fraudulent attempt to attribute non-Jain and uncharacteristic ideas to Kundkund Acharya.

3. Jinsen Trivarnachar (Pages 46-118):

Introduction and Problem of Authenticity: The text is also known as Upasakadhyayan Saaroddhar. No explicit mention of its creation time or author is found within the text. The author's name appears as "Shri Jinsen Acharya," "Shri Bhagvan Jinsen Acharya," "Shri Jinsen Acharya Namankit Vidvajjan," and "Shri Bhattarakavarya Jinsen." The author notes that there have been many Acharyas named Jinsen, making it difficult to identify the specific one. The claim that it's by Bhagvan Jinsen, author of Adi Purana, is challenged due to lack of evidence beyond name similarity and the absence of the text in the works of later esteemed Acharyas.
Evidence of Plagiarism and Fabrication:
- Plagiarism from Purushartha Siddhi Upaya: The initial benediction verses are directly taken from Amritachandra Acharya's Purushartha Siddhi Upaya. The third verse even explicitly mentions the title "Purushartha Siddhi Upaya", revealing the act of plagiarism.
- Plagiarism from Gyanarnava: The text claims to describe meditation according to Gyanarnava by Shubhandra Acharya (11th Century VS). This places Jinsen Trivarnachar after Gyanarnava.
- Plagiarism from Aiki Bhav Stotra: A verse from the Aiki Bhav Stotra by Vadiraja Suri (11th Century VS) is found in the text, dating it after Vadiraja.
- Plagiarism from Gommatasara: Verses from Gommatasara by Nemichandra Siddhanta Chakravarti (11th Century VS) are incorporated.
- Plagiarism from Jin Samhita: Numerous verses are directly copied from the Jin Samhita by Acharya Ekasandhi Bhattaraka (13th Century VS). The text even states an intention to describe the characteristics of homakundas according to Ekasandhi's Nimla Samhita. Ekasandhi himself plagiarized from Adi Purana.
- Plagiarism from Yashastilaka, Yogashastra, and Viveka Vilas: Verses from works by Somadeva Suri (11th Century VS), Hemachandra Acharya (12th Century VS), and Jinadatta Suri (13th Century VS) are found.
- Plagiarism from Dharma Rasik Shravakachar by Somesena: A significant portion of the text is a direct copy of Somesena Trivarnachar, composed by Bhattarak Somesena (completed in 1665 VS). The author details how chapters from Somesena's work are copied, with minor alterations in names.
- Plagiarism from Brahmasuri Trivarnachar: The text also appears to have borrowed from Brahmasuri Trivarnachar, with modifications to names (e.g., replacing "Brahma Suri" with "Gautama Rishi").
- Plagiarism from Hindu Scriptures: This is a major focus of the critique. The author details extensive borrowing from Hindu texts, including:
  - Vishnu Purana, Vayu Purana, Varaha Purana, Brahmavaivarta Purana, Agni Purana, Narada Purana, Vamana Purana, Vishnu Dharmottara, Brhaspati Smriti, Manu Smriti, Parashara Smriti, Atri Smriti, Angira Smriti, Vasistha Smriti, Katyayana Smriti, Gargya Samhita, Narada Samhita, Muhurta Cintamani, Mitakshara (commentary on Yajnavalkya Smriti), Achara Darsha, Smriti Ratnakara, Garuda Purana, etc.
  - These borrowings are found in sections on:
    - Praise of Earth and Prayers to it: Verses praising earth as a divine entity that removes sins, taken from Hindu texts.
    - Bathing with Cow Urine (Panchagavya): Instructions for bathing with cow urine and other cow products, and sun worship, clearly from Hindu traditions.
    - Worship of Rivers: Rivers like Ganga, Rohitashva, Harikanta, Nari, Narakantha are praised as deities that grant liberation and prosperity. This is identified as a Hindu practice.
    - Tarpana (Offering water to ancestors): Detailed procedures for offering water to various ancestors, deities, sages, and even inanimate objects, mirroring Hindu tarpana rituals. The author notes the substitution of Hindu sage names with Jain Acharya names (e.g., changing "Ekasandhi" to "Jinsen," "Brahma Suri" to "Gautama Rishi," "Shankha/Shankhalikhita" to "Bhadra Bahu" or "Samantabhadra," "Agniveshya" to "Gautama," "Vasistha" to "Gautama," "Manusamhita" to "Bhadrabahu Samhita," etc.).
    - Shraddha (Ritual for ancestors): The text includes elaborate descriptions of Hindu shraddha rituals, including various types (nitya, naimittika, parvana, etc.), brahminical offerings, specific mantras (like Om Vishvebhyo Devebhyo..., Om Namah Pitrubhyah, etc.), pinda offerings, and blessings from ancestors. These are identified as direct copies from Hindu scriptures like Mitakshara, Garuda Purana, Katyayana Smriti, and Manu Smriti.
    - Punishment for Eating Supari (Areca Nut): A verse imposing severe punishments (poverty for seven lives, inability to remember Jinendra at death) for eating supari separately from betel leaf is found to be a modification of a Hindu verse that prescribed hell for the same offense.
    - Women's Actions during Menstruation: Verses describe the animalistic rebirths for women who do not engage in sexual intercourse with their husbands during their fertile period, a concept contradicting Jain karma philosophy.
    - Worship of "Ishavariya" and "Mahadhavala": The text mentions worship of "Ishavariya" and the text Mahadhavala, which are not standard Jain practices.
- Contradictory and Illogical Statements:
  - The author highlights the illogical nature of replacing Hindu sage names with Jain Acharya names without understanding the context, leading to nonsensical pronouncements attributed to respected Jain figures.
  - The author criticizes the grammatical and semantic errors in the text, showing a lack of scholarship in the purported author.
  - The presence of a specific year "1731 VS" in a mantra suggests a much later origin than the claimed authors.
Conclusion on Jinsen Trivarnachar: The author concludes that Jinsen Trivarnachar is a fraudulent and highly problematic text. It's not by any known Jinsen Acharya and is a compilation of plagiarized material from various Hindu scriptures and some Jain works, with deliberate alterations of names and attributions. The text is considered religiously offensive and a betrayal of Jain principles, likely created in the late 18th century VS or later by an individual who acted as an enemy of Jainism by corrupting its lineage with borrowed, un-Jain beliefs and practices.

Overall Purpose of the Book: The "Granth Pariksha" series, as exemplified by this first volume, is a scholarly endeavor to critically examine Jain religious literature. Its aim is to identify texts that are authentically by revered Acharyas and to expose those that are fabricated, plagiarized, or contain un-Jain beliefs. By doing so, the author and publisher hope to protect the Jain community from misinformation and preserve the purity of Jain teachings. The book emphasizes the importance of independent thought and critical analysis in understanding religious texts.