Gruhastha Dharmine Nirvan Sambhavi Shake Kharu

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Gruhastha dharmine Nirvan Sambhavi Shake Kharu" by Sukhlal Sanghavi, focusing on the question of whether liberation (Nirvana) is possible for a householder:

The text delves into a fundamental question within Jain philosophy: Can a householder, while still engaged in worldly life and its associated duties, attain liberation (Nirvana)?

The author begins by acknowledging the traditional view that a renunciate (sannyasi) state is generally considered essential for reaching the ultimate goal of spiritual practice and Nirvana. However, they also present the counter-argument that it is accepted that this state can be attained even while living as a householder.

The core of the discussion is framed by a specific example and a subsequent inquiry: The author expresses understanding for a householder who lives a life of detachment. However, they question whether individuals who continue to engage in married life and procreation until the end of their lives, such as the saint Tukaram, can truly reach the state of Nirvana. The reasoning behind this doubt is that those who haven't been freed from the desire for procreation, which leads to the continuation of the lineage through their children, cannot possibly escape the cycle of rebirth itself, which is perpetuated by the same generative impulse.

The author then addresses this question by explaining that the confusion arises from a misunderstanding of the inner and outer aspects of religious practices and life stages (ashramas). They argue that a deeper examination of the practical meanings of terms like spiritual practice (adhyātmasādhanā), Nirvana, the renunciate ashram (sannyās-āshram), renunciation (tyāg), and the householder ashram (gruhasthāshram) reveals that there is no inherent contradiction in the case of someone like Tukaram.

The questioner, it is suggested, mistakenly assumes that if someone like Tukaram was a great saint, they must have also been a complete renunciate within their householder life. This leads to the further question of how such a renunciate could still harbor the desire for procreation.

The author clarifies that regardless of how intellectual, analytical, devoted, or detached Tukaram might have been, it cannot be definitively said that he had reached the complete state of renunciation. If his desire for procreation is acknowledged as having a positive aspect (perhaps in terms of fulfilling worldly duties or continuing a lineage), then the belief that he had attained the inner, complete state of renunciation or detachment loses its foundation.

The text then articulates a key principle: Renunciation and detachment are indeed possible within the householder ashram, but their true development occurs to the extent that worldly desires (bhogvāsanā) have been subdued or diminished.

The author concludes by stating that only a householder who completely eradicates their desires can achieve complete renunciation and detachment. Conversely, the spiritual perspective is that even an outward renunciate, a sannyasi, or a monk (sadhu) who has adopted their specific ashram but still possesses varying degrees of desire, is, in a fundamental spiritual sense, inferior to a person living in the householder ashram who has advanced in subduing or controlling their desires. This highlights that the internal state of one's spiritual progress is paramount, regardless of the external ashram.