Granth Pariksha Part 02

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Granth Pariksha Part 02," focusing on the critique of the "Bhadravahu Samhita":

Book Title: Granth Pariksha Part 02 (Book Examination Part 02) Author: Jugalkishor Mukhtar Publisher: Jain Granth Ratnakar Karyalay Subject: Critical examination of the "Bhadravahu Samhita" to determine its authenticity and authorship.

Overview:

This work, authored by Jugalkishor Mukhtar, is the second part of a series of critical examinations of Jain texts published in the journal "Jain Hiteshi." The primary objective of this volume is to meticulously analyze the "Bhadravahu Samhita" and expose its likely fabrication, arguing that it was not composed by the revered Shruta Kevali Bhadravahu. The author aims to awaken the Jain community from blind faith and encourage critical thinking regarding religious scriptures.

Key Arguments and Findings:

1. The Importance of Bhadravahu: The text begins by establishing the high stature of Bhadravahu as the fifth Shruta Kevali, someone who possessed complete knowledge of the twelve Angas of Jain scripture. His word was considered authoritative, equivalent to that of a Tirthankara. Therefore, any text attributed to him would be of immense importance and reverence.

2. The Quest for the Samhita: The author details his long and arduous journey to obtain a complete and verifiable copy of the "Bhadravahu Samhita," highlighting the difficulty in finding reliable manuscripts.

3. Reasons for Doubt and the Need for Examination:

   • Lack of Mention in Ancient Literature: Despite Bhadravahu's prominence, the "Bhadravahu Samhita" is not mentioned in the works of any prominent ancient Jain scholars or in ancient inscriptions.
   • Absence in Southern Jain Traditions: Information from Southern Jain Bhandaras revealed no mention or copies of this text, which is surprising given Bhadravahu's connection to that region.
   • Inconsistent Structure and Content: The Samhita's internal inconsistencies, such as the conflicting number of sections (three vs. five mentioned in the text) and the misnaming of sections (e.g., calling the second section "Uttar Khand" at the beginning but "Madhya Khand" at the end), suggest a lack of careful composition.
   • Contradictory Section Naming: The titles of the sections, like "Jyotish Khand" and "Nimitta Khand," do not accurately reflect their content, with many chapters in the "Nimitta Khand" dealing with subjects other than prognostication.
   • Discrepancies in Verse Count: The text mentions around 7,000 verses in its structure but the concluding remarks claim 12,000 verses across five sections, with no trace of the fourth and fifth sections.

4. Evidence of Fabrication and Plagiarism:

   • Borrowed Content from Non-Jain Sources: The author provides extensive evidence that large portions of the Samhita are plagiarized from Hindu astrological and religious texts like Brihat Samhita, Brihat Parashari Hora, Laghu Parashari, and the works of Varahamihira and Nandi (likely referring to Varahamihira and other authors).
   • Alteration of Content to Fit Jain Narrative: The author shows how borrowed verses have been subtly altered to appear as Jain teachings, often by replacing names of non-Jain deities or concepts with Jain equivalents (e.g., replacing "Brahmins" with "Jinas" or "Sangha").
   • Anachronisms and Historical Inaccuracies: The text contains historical inaccuracies, such as placing Bhadravahu in direct conversation with King Shrenik, who lived much earlier than Bhadravahu. It also includes prophecies and descriptions of events that suggest a composition date much later than Bhadravahu's time.
   • Inconsistent Use of Language and Style: The presence of verses with Sanskrit explanations for Pratekh-language texts, while other Pratekh verses lack explanations, and the inclusion of vernacular terms within Sanskrit verses, points to a piecemeal compilation.
   • Contradictory Statements Within the Text: The author highlights numerous internal contradictions, especially in the chapters on Danda (punishment) and Nimitta (prognostication), where rules and consequences are stated differently in various parts of the text.
   • Inclusion of Non-Jain Rituals and Beliefs: The Samhita advocates for rituals and beliefs clearly contrary to Jain principles, such as performing Shraddha rituals (pindadaan), offering worship to non-Jain deities for auspicious results, performing specific purificatory baths after contact with certain people or objects, and penalizing individuals for not respecting their gurus' words with pronouncements of hellish punishments.
   • Praise of Modern Bhattarakas and Criticism of Digambara Munis: The text elevates modern Bhattarakas (ascetic leaders, often associated with Digambara tradition but sometimes criticized for devi-devi worship) and their rituals, while denigrating pure Digambara monks as "foolish," "outcast," and "undeserving of worship" if they adhere to ascetic principles.
   • Unrealistic and Superstitious Claims: The Samhita makes exaggerated claims about the efficacy of certain rituals, such as ensuring eternal existence for structures or prosperity from appeasing deities, which are contrary to the scientific and philosophical principles of Jainism.

5. Dating the Samhita: Based on the inclusion of material from texts like Vasunandi's Pratishthasar Sangraha (dated to the 12th-13th century CE) and Pandit Ashadhar's Sagardharmamrit (completed in 1296 CE), and its reliance on Tajika Nilakanthi (17th century CE), the author concludes that the "Bhadravahu Samhita" was likely composed sometime between 1657 CE and 1665 CE.

6. The Likely Authorship: The colophon of the manuscript found in the Jhalrapatan Bhandar suggests that the text was prepared under the patronage of Bhattarak Dharmabhushanji of Gopa-chal (Gwalior) and possibly transcribed by his disciple Gyanabhushan.

Conclusion:

Jugalkishor Mukhtar strongly argues that the "Bhadravahu Samhita" is a cleverly fabricated work, not authored by the esteemed Shruta Kevali Bhadravahu. It is a compilation of passages borrowed and altered from various Jain and non-Jain sources, including Hindu scriptures, to create an illusion of authenticity. The text's internal contradictions, historical inaccuracies, inclusion of un-Jain rituals and beliefs, and the disparaging remarks against pure Digambara monks reveal its true nature as a product of its time, likely created by individuals with vested interests who sought to establish their own authority by appropriating the revered name of Bhadravahu. The author urges the Jain community to critically examine such texts and to uphold the pure teachings of Mahavir Bhagwan, free from the influence of sectarianism and blind faith.

Significance:

This work is a significant contribution to Jain scholarship, promoting critical textual analysis and historical accuracy. It challenges the blind acceptance of scriptures and encourages a rational and discerning approach to religious literature, ultimately aiming to preserve the integrity and purity of Jain teachings.