Jain Darshan Aur Mansahar Me Parsparik Virodh

Here is a comprehensive summary of the Jain text "Jain Darshan Aur Mansahar Me Parsparik Virodh" (Jain Philosophy and its Contradiction with Meat-Eating) by Dharmanand Kaushambi, presented in English:

Book Title: Jain Darshan Aur Mansahar Me Parsparik Virodh (Jain Philosophy and its Contradiction with Meat-Eating) Author: Dharmanand Kaushambi (as the subject of critique, the essayist is Munishri 1008 Shri Anandrishi Ji M.S.) Publisher: Jain Dharm Prasarak Sabha

Overall Purpose:

This book is an essay written by Munishri 1008 Shri Anandrishi Ji M.S. to refute the claim, notably made by the Buddhist scholar Dharmanand Kaushambi in his book "Bhagwan Buddha," that Lord Mahavir and Jainism permitted or practiced meat-eating. The essay aims to clarify misinterpretations of Jain scriptures (Agams) and establish the absolute prohibition of meat-eating in Jainism, both for ascetics and householders.

Introduction (Page 1-2):

• The introduction highlights that due to a lack of widespread understanding of Jain principles, many European and Indian scholars harbor misconceptions about Jainism and its proponents.
• The accusation of Lord Mahavir consuming meat is presented as a prime example of such a misconception, arising from a misunderstanding of ambiguous words in the Agams.
• The author asserts that it is impossible for Lord Mahavir, the great proponent of ahimsa (non-violence) and an embodiment of compassion, to have consumed meat under any circumstances.
• Meat-eating is considered strictly forbidden not only for ascetics but also for householders (Shravaks) who possess right faith (Samyaktva).
• The tradition of prohibiting meat-eating, as taught by Lord Mahavir, has continued uninterrupted for 2500 years.
• The essay was originally published in the "Jain Prakash" newspaper and is being republished to address the disturbance caused in the Jain community by Kaushambi's claims.
• The hope is that this essay will dispel the confusion and encourage scholars to view Jainism in its true form.

Mangalacharan (Invocation) and Initial Argument (Page 3-8):

• The essay begins with a prayer seeking divine guidance for those trapped in rigid beliefs and ignorance.
• It emphasizes the need for correct understanding of scriptures, stressing that merely knowing grammar, poetry, and logic is insufficient. True understanding requires guidance from a Geetarth Guru (a scholar who has fully grasped the meaning of scriptures).
• Analogy of Misinterpretation: Two analogies are provided to illustrate how misunderstanding can arise from a literal interpretation of words without considering context or proper guidance:
  • A scholar, suffering from a nasal ailment, misinterprets medical advice to smell the flowers of Ganika (identified as juhi or jasmine) as smelling the menstrual fluid of a prostitute.
  • A learned person suffering from fever misinterprets the advice to drink the decoction of Kantakari (a plant) by forming a compound word and thinking it means drinking the decoction of "shoes."
• These analogies are applied to those who, without proper guidance, incorrectly interpret Jain scriptural terms like matsya (fish), mamsa (meat), kavoya (pigeon), kukkud (chicken), and majjar (cat) literally, ignoring the broader principles of Jainism which prohibit even proximity to meat and the contemplation of forbidden substances.
• The author argues that it's illogical for ascetics, who are forbidden to even be in places where matsya-mamsa is known, to be instructed to take or consume it.
• The principle of Vyakhyanato Vishesh Pratipattir Na Hi Sandehadalakshanam (from commentary, special understanding arises; doubt does not render it invalid) is invoked, stating that when doubts arise in scripture, the interpretation of learned individuals should be followed.
• The essay advocates for interpreting scriptures in a way that supports, rather than contradicts, fundamental principles, similar to Shankaracharya's approach to Vedanta.
• Importance of Guru Tradition: The essay stresses that understanding the profound meaning of scriptures requires diligent study under a Geetarth Guru, much like the depth of the ocean can only be known by Mount Mandara, not by monkeys crossing it.
• Critique of Superficial Interpretation: Those who try to corrupt Jainism and culture by relying on superficial word meanings without the guidance of Geetarth Gurus are undertaking a grave act of defiance.
• Wisdom over Haste: Wise individuals do not act rashly. They compare and contrast what they hear or read with established truths, ensuring their actions and interpretations do not create conflict.
• Warning to the Community: The essay cautions the Jain community against reacting impulsively to accusations from those who are either ignorant of Jain Agams, have incomplete knowledge, or lack discernment. It emphasizes that engaging in debates with such individuals is often futile.

Refutation of Kaushambi's Arguments (Page 10-39):

The core of the essay involves dismantling Kaushambi's specific interpretations of Jain scriptures, primarily from the Dashavaikalika Sutra and Acharanga Sutra.

• Nature of Jain Agams: The essay explains that Lord Mahavir's teachings were in Ardhamagadhi, a language that could be understood in various ways by different beings based on their karma and knowledge. This means that the literal words can have multiple interpretations.

• Multiple Meanings of Words: The principle of "Ananto Atthho of a single sutra" (infinite meanings of one sutra) is highlighted. This allows for differing interpretations, and it's not surprising if meat-eaters extract the meaning of "meat" where it's not intended.

• Critique of Kaushambi's Interpretation of Dashavaikalika Sutra (Page 12-17):

  • Kaushambi cites verses from the Dashavaikalika Sutra (Chapter 5, Section 1, Verses 73-74) that speak of bahudviyam poggalan, animisam va bahukantayam, etc., and interprets words like poggalan as meat, animisam as fish, and atthi as bone.
  • The author vehemently refutes this, stating that the words poggalan and atthi refer to fruits of plants that have seeds (bij) or a core (guda), not flesh or bones. For example, atthi means "having a seed or stone." Poggalan refers to the pulp of fruits like those from the Pudgal tree. Animisam and bahukantayam refer to fruits with many seeds or thorny parts.
  • The essay argues that if the ascetic rejects these things, it's because they are difficult to eat (more to discard than consume), not because they are meat. The verses clearly state the monk should reject them if they are not suitable, not that they are permitted.
  • The author asserts that interpreting these verses as permitting meat is a "great delusion" and a misapplication of linguistic rules. The principle of sahacharita-asahacharitayormadhye sahacharitasyeva grahanam (when both related and unrelated concepts are present, the related one should be accepted) is used. The context of other plant names in the verse clearly indicates plant-based foods.
  • The author elaborates on the botanical meanings of atthi (having a stone/seed), tinduk, bilva, ikshukhanda (sugarcane), and simbali (cotton tree) as fruits and parts of plants, referencing Jain texts like Pannavna Sutra.
  • The meaning of kantaka (thorn) is also clarified as referring to the fibrous parts of plants or thorns on plants like acacia, not fish bones.

• Critique of Kaushambi's Interpretation of Acharanga Sutra (Page 18-26):

  • Kaushambi also cites verses from the Acharanga Sutra that mention bahudhiyamamsam va machham va bahukantayam and interprets mamsam as meat and machham as fish.
  • The author reiterates the argument that mamsam here refers to the pulp (guda) of fruits and machham refers to a specific plant called Machha (or Matsyagandha).
  • The context of the Acharanga Sutra passage describes a monk receiving alms. If the alms consist of fruits with many seeds or thorny parts (which are difficult to eat), or if the householder offers the pulp but intends to give the inedible parts (seeds/thorns) as well, the monk should refuse or take only the acceptable part and dispose of the rest respectfully.
  • The author highlights the absurdity of a religion based on absolute non-violence permitting the consumption of meat from five-sensed beings.
  • Supporting Negative Evidence: The essay provides numerous scriptural references from Sutrakritanga, Sthananga Sutra, and Uttaradhyayana Sutra that explicitly prohibit meat-eating, the contemplation of meat, and even association with meat-eaters. These verses condemn meat-eating as a cause of suffering, attachment, and rebirth in lower realms.

• Critique of Kaushambi's Interpretation of Bhagwati Sutra (Page 27-38):

  • Kaushambi's most contentious claim is based on a passage in the Bhagwati Sutra (15th Shatak, Revati Gathapati story) where Lord Mahavir's disciple Sinh is said to have been told by Mahavir to obtain "kukkuta mamsa" (chicken meat) from Revati, while rejecting "kapoya shareera" (pigeon bodies).
  • The essay strongly refutes this, arguing that this interpretation is completely out of context and contradicts Mahavir's teachings.
  • Context of the passage: The passage is explained in its proper context: Lord Mahavir was suffering from a heat-related ailment caused by Gosala's teolesshya. His disciple Sinh was worried. Mahavir told him he would live for another 15.5 years and then instructed him to go to Mandika town. The reference to "kapoya shareera" and "kukkuta mamsa" is interpreted as follows:
    • "Kapo(ta) sharira" refers to Kushmanda (ash gourd/pumpkin) fruits that are of a pigeon-like color, which were offered but were considered aadhakarmik (containing impurities from the preparation process) and therefore rejected.
    • "Kukkuta mamsa" refers to the pulp of the Bijpura (citron) fruit or a preparation made with the herb Marjar Kand, which was considered pure and beneficial for Mahavir's condition. Kukkuta and Marjar can also refer to specific plants known for their medicinal properties.
  • Botanical and Linguistic Analysis: The essay provides detailed explanations of how words like kavoya, kukkut, and marjar have multiple meanings in Ardhamagadhi and can refer to specific plants or medicinal herbs, not just animals. It cites lexicographical sources.
  • Medicinal Context: The text highlights that Bijpura fruit pulp is known for its cooling properties, fitting the context of Mahavir's ailment, while pigeon meat is also described as cooling. Chicken meat is described as heating and heavy. Therefore, Mahavir rejecting the cooling meat and asking for the heating meat makes no sense contextually.
  • Analogy of "Wise Men's Time" Verse: A common verse about how wise people spend their time is presented with a literal, foolish interpretation (gambling, womanizing, thievery) and then a metaphorical, correct interpretation (studying scriptures about vices, reading epics like Ramayana, reading about Krishna). This analogy is used to show how superficial interpretation leads to wrong conclusions.

Final Arguments and Conclusion (Page 39-42):

• Concept of Violence in Jainism: The essay clarifies the Jain concept of violence (hinsa). It's defined as the separation of life-force (prana) from the soul. There are ten vital forces (pranas), including the five senses, mind, speech, breath, and lifespan. Violence is categorized as primary (mukhya) and secondary (gaun). Harming five-sensed beings is primary violence, while harming one-sensed beings (earth, water, fire, air, plants) is secondary.
• Householder's Duty: Jain householders engage in agriculture and cooking, which involves harm to one-sensed beings. However, this is considered secondary violence and a means of livelihood, undertaken with care and regulations. This is fundamentally different from the primary violence of killing animals for meat.
• Distinction Between Types of Violence: The essay argues that equating the harm caused by farming with the intentional killing of animals for meat is a gross misunderstanding. The degree of sin is proportional to the number of vital forces affected.
• No Scriptural Basis for Meat-Eating: The essay concludes by reiterating that there is no single scriptural passage in the 32 Jain Agams that permits meat consumption. All references are either prohibitions or misinterpreted passages about plants and medicines.
• The Purity of Jainism: The essay asserts that Jainism's emphasis on ahimsa, compassion, and abstinence from meat, alcohol, etc., is unparalleled in the world.
• Call for Objective Study: The essay urges readers to study Jain scriptures objectively, considering the context, tradition, and commentary, to arrive at the true meaning and to refute false accusations against Lord Mahavir and Jainism.

In essence, the book is a strong defense of Jainism's strict vegetarianism, arguing that interpretations suggesting meat-eating are the result of misreading scripture, ignoring context, and lacking the guidance of qualified Jain scholars. It emphasizes the profound and all-encompassing nature of ahimsa in Jain philosophy.