Itihas Ke Aaine Me Navangi Tikakar Abhaydevsuriji Ka Gaccha - Book Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary of the Jain text "Itihas Ke Aaine Me Navangi Tikakar Abhaydevsuriji Ka Gaccha" (In the Mirror of History: The Lineage of Navangi Tikakar Acharya Abhaydevsuriji) by Bhushan Shah, based on the provided pages:

Core Argument:

The primary objective of this book is to historically investigate and clarify the lineage (Gaccha) of the esteemed Jain scholar and commentator, Acharya Abhaydevsuriji, who is renowned for his commentaries on nine Agamic texts (Navangi Tikakar). The book contends that while Abhaydevsuriji was a monumental figure in the preservation and propagation of Jain scriptures, the prevalent belief that he belonged to the Kharatar Gaccha is historically inaccurate and unsupported by primary evidence. Instead, the book argues that Abhaydevsuriji, along with his predecessor Acharya Jineshwar Vimalasuri and his contemporary Acharya Jinchandrasuri, belonged to the Chandrakul (Lunar Lineage).

Key Themes and Arguments:

The Importance of Acharya Abhaydevsuriji: The book highlights Abhaydevsuriji's immense contribution to Jainism. In a period of scriptural decline due to famines and adverse political conditions, he diligently restored and authored commentaries on nine Angas of the Jain Agamas. This act is likened to the work of Devardhigani Kshamashraman, who compiled the Agamas into written form. His commentaries made the complex Agamas accessible and preserved their meaning for posterity.
Challenging the Kharatar Gaccha Association: The central thesis is to dismantle the widely held notion that Abhaydevsuriji was part of the Kharatar Gaccha. This belief, the book argues, stems from misinterpretations and the influence of later, less historically reliable texts and traditions.
The Origin of the Kharatar Gaccha and Acharya Jineshwar Vimalasuri: A significant portion of the book is dedicated to examining the origin of the Kharatar Gaccha. The widely propagated story attributes the 'Khara' (or 'Khartar') epithet to Acharya Jineshwar Vimalasuri after a debate in the court of King Durlabhraja around 1080 VS. However, the book meticulously scrutinizes ancient historical texts, inscriptions, and scholarly opinions.
Lack of Evidence for Jineshwar Vimalasuri Receiving the 'Khara' Epithet: The author presents extensive evidence from numerous ancient Jain texts, including commentaries by his disciples and later scholars, pottas (lineage records), and inscriptions. Crucially, none of these early sources mention Jineshwar Vimalasuri receiving any 'Khara' or 'Khartar' epithet from King Durlabhraja or in relation to any debate at his court. His own extensive writings and those of his prominent disciples (like Dhaneshwar Vimalasuri, Jinchandrasuri, and Abhaydevsuriji himself) do not contain any mention of this epithet or the event.
The True Origin of the Kharatar Gaccha: The book argues, based on the analysis of various ancient texts and historical records from different Gacchas (like the Achalgaccha and Tapagaccha), that the Kharatar Gaccha originated much later, likely around the time of Acharya Jinvallabh Suri or, more definitively, Acharya Jinvallabh Suri's disciple, Acharya Jinda ttasuri. The year 1204 VS is frequently cited as the origin of the Kharatar Gaccha based on these historical sources.
Evidence for Abhaydevsuriji's Lineage: The book provides strong evidence from Abhaydevsuriji's own commentaries' colophons (prashastis) and other contemporary or near-contemporary texts that he belonged to the Chandrakul. His lineage is also associated with the "AbhaydevsurisantanIya" (descendants of Abhaydevsuriji) and the "Chhatrapalliya Gaccha," neither of which are identified as branches of the Kharatar Gaccha in their own early literature.
Critique of "Kharatar" Epithet and Later Claims:
- The etymology of the word 'Khara' (meaning sharp, harsh, severe) is analyzed. The argument that it signifies truthfulness or correctness is questioned, as its common usage points to harshness.
- Later attempts to prove Jineshwar Vimalasuri's connection to the 'Khara' epithet through interpretations of later texts or inscriptions are critically examined and often debunked as misinterpretations, interpolations, or fabrications based on manuscript analysis.
- The author addresses specific pieces of evidence presented by proponents of the Kharatar Gaccha theory, such as inscriptions and texts like the 'Mahavir Charitra' and 'Vriddhacharya Prabhandavali', demonstrating their alleged inaccuracies or later origins.
Abhaydevsuriji and Jinchandrasuri's Relationship: The book clarifies that Acharya Jinchandrasuri, the author of 'Samvegarangashala,' was a spiritual brother (Gurubhai) to Abhaydevsuriji. Both belonged to the Chandrakul and were disciples of Acharya Jineshwar Vimalasuri. Their lineage is distinct from the Kharatar Gaccha.
The Role of "Kulagurus" and Manipulated Histories: The book delves into the historical practice of 'Kulagurus' (family preceptors) who maintained genealogies of their followers. It suggests that over time, some of these traditions, driven by a desire to connect with esteemed figures like Abhaydevsuriji, led to the misattribution of lineage and the creation of historically inaccurate narratives.
Scholarly Consensus and Historical Method: The author relies heavily on the works of esteemed historians like Pandit Kalyanvijayji, Jinavijayji, and Mahopadhyaya Vinaysagarji, who have also critiqued the claims about the Kharatar Gaccha's early origins and the lineage of these great Acharyas. The book emphasizes the importance of adhering to ancient and primary evidence over later interpretations.

Structure and Approach:

The book is structured systematically, presenting a detailed historical investigation. It begins with an introduction, followed by biographical sketches of Abhaydevsuriji and his context. It then delves into the core debate by examining:

References to Jineshwar Vimalasuri and his disciples.
Mentions in ancient historical texts.
References in Gaccha-specific texts (like Rudrapalliya Gaccha).
Opinions of historical experts.
Analysis of alleged interpolations and forged inscriptions.
Chronological critiques of historical events.
Discussions on the meaning and contradictory use of the term 'Khara'.
Critiques of specific arguments and 'matpatras' (declarations/agreements).
Appendices with detailed textual evidence, inscriptions, and scholarly opinions to support its arguments.

Conclusion:

The book definitively concludes that based on a thorough examination of available historical evidence, Acharya Abhaydevsuriji, Acharya Jineshwar Vimalasuri, and Acharya Jinchandrasuri were not part of the Kharatar Gaccha. They belonged to the Chandrakul. The Kharatar Gaccha originated later, with Acharya Jinda ttasuri being a key figure. The book urges readers to approach historical claims with critical analysis and to rely on corroborated ancient evidence, promoting a spirit of truthfulness and inter-Gaccha harmony.