Jain Sanskruti Pratishthapak Acharya Kundakunda Vratya The

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, focusing on its key arguments and assertions:

The text, "Jain Sanskruti Pratishthapak Acharya Kundakunda Vratya (David 'Shraman')", authored by Khushalchand Gorawala, argues that Acharya Kundakunda was a pre-Vedic, Vratya (David 'Shraman') person, and a foundational figure of Jain culture. The author asserts that modern historical methods, particularly Western ones, are limited in their scope and fail to acknowledge the existence of a pre-Vedic or Dravidian culture in India until discoveries like Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa. These excavations, the author contends, have revolutionized understanding by proving that the pre-Vedic culture was a "well-developed civilization" and that the Aryans were less civilized and proficient than the Dravidian confederacy. The Vedic texts themselves refer to these opponents as "Dasas" and "Vratyas."

The author elaborates on the characteristics of the Vratyas, stating that they rejected sacrifices, Brahmins, and animal sacrifices. While the Rigveda mentions the Vratya, the Yajurveda and Taittiriya Brahmana describe them as sacrificial animals in "Naramegha" (human sacrifice). The Atharvaveda, however, states that the "wandering Vratya" inspired Prajapati. A clear conclusion from studying Vedic and Brahmanical literature, according to the text, is that the "Dasas or Vratyas were the 'people' who opposed the Vedic people." This opposition is why the Vratyas were considered sacrificial animals, similar to the bull in "Gomedha," in "Naramegha."

The text further analyzes post-Vedic literature, highlighting a passage in Patanjali's commentary on Panini's Sutras. Patanjali notes that a dual compound can be formed even when there is a natural opposition, such as between a snake and a mongoose, or a "Brahmin and Shraman." This, the author argues, clearly indicates that the pre-Vedic people, the Vratyas, were Dravidians or Shramanas. These pastoralists, in terms of spirituality, renunciation, asceticism, liberation, and philosophy, were considered superior to the ritualistic, Soma-drinking, and heaven-aspiring Aryans. The Vratyas did not agree to the superiority of the Aryans who conquered through their strength in horses, arrows, Soma-drinking, Rudra-like ferocity, and mountainous resilience. This led to ongoing conflict between them and the Vedic people or Brahmins, even during the Ramayana and Mahabharata eras. The text suggests that the term "Rakshasa" (from "Rakshas" with the suffix "an") came to mean those who opposed sacrifices and were sinful, just as the word "Arya," originally meaning homeless or nomadic, came to mean "superior" because they were the conquerors.

The author addresses Western scholars who initially labeled Buddhists as Vratyas due to their lack of understanding of ancient Indian religions. However, contemporary research, the text asserts, makes it clear that a guru-parampara of Vratyas (Shramanas) existed long before the advent of Mahatma Buddha, during the Ramayana and Mahabharata periods. The text claims that the creation of Prajapati originated from Hiranyagarbha Rishabhadeva, who predates Vedic texts. These were "Shishnadeva" or Digambaras who practiced meditation and asceticism while wandering. They were initially called Hiranyagarbha because gold appeared in their conception, and later, they became the masters of beings, providing knowledge, meditation, and austerity, and were the unique lords of beings through compassion and friendship. Their language was Prakrit or the common tongue, which, in its simple form, is the precursor to Vedic Sanskrit, just as Vedic Sanskrit is the precursor to Classical Sanskrit. This Prakrit-language, liberation-oriented Vratya or Shramana culture has continued in its original form from the age of Rishabha to the modern Jains. The author points to the various sects like Ajivika and the early severe practices of Gautama Buddha as evidence that this Shramana culture, centered on self-control, discipline, and vows, was the original and fundamental culture of India. Acharya Kundakunda, the last Shramana Kevali, preached and practiced this very culture. The text states that due to a twelve-year famine in Magadha during the Maurya period, a laxity arose in the Shramana tradition, leading to divisions (Sthavirakalpa or Shvetambara). However, Acharya Kundakunda revived the original form of Jinkalpa or Digambara, which is presented as an unparalleled contribution of India, and indeed the world, to the art of soul liberation.

The text then discusses the lineage of Shramana culture after Lord Mahavir, citing texts like Jayadhavala, Tiloypannatti, and Jambudweep pannatti, which list protectors of Indian culture for approximately 683 years after Lord Mahavir. It mentions that the lineage of the second of the four main sanghas (David, Nandi, Sena, and Kashtha) from the pre-Aryan period, the Nandisangha, follows a similar pattern, mentioning Kevalis, Shruta Kevalis, those who possessed the eleven Angas and ten Purvas, and those who only knew the Achāranga. It also includes the names of Arhali, Maghanandi, Gunadhara, Dharasena, and Pushpadantabhūtabali. According to Shruta Avatara, Kundakundacharya was the first to write on the subjects of Kashay Pahud and Shatkhandagama. Unlike the "Paddhati" of Shamkund, the "Vyakhyā" of Tumbularacharya, and the commentary of Samantabhadra, Acharya Kundakunda's work was "Parikarma." This extensive commentary or treatise was available to the benevolent Acharya Virasena, who gave it the utmost importance in his own commentaries (Dhavala, Jayadhavala).

Regarding Kundakunda's works, the text states that although his first work, 'Parikarm,' is only available through quotations, it is sufficient to prove his lineage within the inner tradition of Shruta Kevalis. Kundakundacharya, the first proponent of Dravyanuyoga and Charanāuyoga, is also supported by his expertise in Karanāuyoga. The author lists his available works such as Mulachara, Ashtaprabhrita (out of eighty-four Pahudas), Ratnasara, Dasabhakti, Barasa Anuvekkha, Niyamasara, Panchaastikayasangraha, and Pravachanasara, calling them the initial proponents of concepts like substance, qualities, modes, metaphysical knowledge, clear ethical codes, and the nature of the world, which are rare in Brahmanical and Buddhist literature. The text positions Kundakundacharya as the primary exponent of India's original Dravidian or Shramana culture, contrasting him with the inspirations from Brahmanical, Aranyaka, and Upanishadic thought.

The text then delves into the guru tradition, mentioning that Acharya Kundakunda himself is not reticent about his lineage, but prominent commentators also lack specific knowledge about him. Darshanasara states that the verses indicating Acharya Shri's departure to Videha are a compilation of earlier verses. Jayasenacharya, in his commentary on Panchastikaya, also mentions Acharya's journey to Videha and receiving solutions from Simandhar Swami. A verse in Pravachanasara also hints at this. In its commentary, it's suggested that instead of calling him a disciple of Kumara Nandisiddhantadeva, it's possible he was the guru of Jinachandra of the Nandisangha, as Jinachandra was a disciple of Maghanandi, who preceded Gunadhara-Dharasena and was a prominent Shruta-ghar after the last Shruta Kevali, Bhadrabahuswami.

Acharya Kundakunda himself states in his Bodhapahuda: "The Agama that Lord Vira preached in meaning, the Ganadharas and others wove into word form. This Kundakunda, the disciple of Bhadrabahu, has known and spoken it thus. May my 'Gamaka Guru', the omniscient Lord Bhadrabahu, who is a clear expounder of the Twelve Angas and a detailed knower of the Fourteen Purvas, be victorious!" Furthermore, at the beginning of his most renowned work in the spiritual world, Samaysara, after offering salutations to the Siddhas, he clearly states, "I am speaking this Samayaprabhrita that was spoken by the Shruta Kevali."

These two mentions of guru reverence by Acharya Kundakunda authoritatively declare that he was imparting the same knowledge that flowed uninterruptedly from Lord Vira, through Ardhama-gadhi, up to the last Shruta Kevali, Bhadrabahu Swami. The text clarifies that even within the Shvetambara tradition, Bhadrabahu Swami is considered the last Shruta Kevali, as evident from the event at Pataliputra, where Sthulabhadra, after collecting eleven Katha and compilations, went to him for the Drishtivada but failed to receive complete instruction due to his laxity.

However, the text explains that the last Shruta Kevali of the original tradition or Sangha kindly imparted knowledge up to the Purva of Vidyānusvāda, the twelfth Anga, to Sthulabhadra, instructing him not to use it for miracles or personal gain. But Sthulabhadra succumbed to temptation and was revealed by his sister, who was in the form of a lion in her cave, leading Bhadrabahu Swami to cease teaching. Consequently, the Sthavirakalpis had to make do with only eleven Angas and declare the twelfth Anga as lost. Later, understanding the importance, profundity, and utility of the twelfth Anga in the original Shramana tradition, the Shruta-ghar Acharyas, after saluting the original Tirthankaras, worshiping the divine speech, and honoring the compilers like Ganadharas, composed scriptures with an oath of conformity to Tirthankara knowledge.

The text then discusses the Mūlasangha and Kundakundanvaya. It states that during Lord Mahavir's time, Shramanas or Arhatas were known as 'Nigranthas' or Nirgranthas, which denotes Digambaras. The goal of Shramana culture was liberation, which necessitates complete non-possession. Therefore, in this cycle of time, the religion originating from Hiranyagarbha Rishabha, in its original form, considers Digambaratva or Jinkalpa as the ultimate external means to liberation. Even Shvetambara Angas acknowledge Rishabhadeva as a pure Jinkalpi or Digambara, and the text argues that it's self-contradictory for Shvetambaras to consider Lord Vira as a pure Jinkalpi by equating "Achal" with "Sachal." They forget that this is an avasarpini (descending) period of time. Therefore, the standards from the Ramayana to the Mahabharata eras are diminishing. The interpretation of the original word "Achal" as "Alpa-chel" (a little cloth) in the Agamas is a later development. This interpretation is described as self-destructive for Shramana culture, as outsiders could question why ritualistic violence, partial non-violence, and partial truth are not acceptable within Shramana Dharma, thereby undermining the original meaning of "Vratya" or "Ajji" (abstention).

The author emphasizes that the eternal or original culture of India was the liberation-oriented Jinkalpa Digambara Dharma. The term "Mūlasangha" is used for this, which is also proven by inscriptions from the 4th century CE and earlier, following the propagation by Acharya Kundakunda. This is why the four later main Sanghas (David, Nandi, Sena, and Kashtha) consider themselves descendants of Kundakunda and are connected to him. Therefore, the time of Kundakunda, the prime disciple of the last Shruta Kevali Bhadrabahu Swami, could be contemporary with the first attempt at Agam Vacana (compilation of Angas) by the Sthavirakalpi Shvetambaras at Pataliputra. After the failure of the Chhedopasthapana attempt proposed by Sthulabhadra and others in Shvetambara literature, the North Indian Jain Shramanas adopted Sachalata and the practice of 14 types of equipment. Due to the famine, they resorted to collecting food and eating in groups in Upashrayas, saving alms for later times, and influenced by Buddha's Madhyama Vriti, the belief in female renunciation and liberation also became deeply entrenched. This is why Acharya Kundakunda, a follower of Shishnadeva, states in his Bodhaprahṛta: "There is no liberation in the Jinamarga or Kalpa for those who wear clothes, even if they are Tirthankaras. Digambaratva is the pure path to liberation; the rest are wrong paths. To become an Anagar, renunciation of all possessions is essential. One who possesses a little (Falaka) or much (fourteen instruments) is still a householder in the Jinashasana (Kalpa)."

The text asserts that the remembrance of Shruta Kevalis in Bodhapahuda and Samayapahuna is not just an act of devotion but a declaration of the authenticity of Kundakunda Swami's exposition of the original Dharma. They state that the Jinavani that flowed uninterruptedly from Vira's mouth to the last Shruta Kevali Bhadrabahu Swami is the source of his works. While Brahmanical culture introduced linguistic rigidity (birth-based superiority), Jain Acharyas adopted Sanskrit. However, the original Acharya Kundakunda, in Prakrit, flowed the unceasing stream of Shramana philosophy. The text quotes the saying: "Mangalam Bhagavan Veera, Mangalam Gautam Gani, Mangalam Kundakundacharya, Jainadharmostu Mangalam." Similar to the Shramana or Nigrantha's "Agam-Chakhu Sahu" (monk as the eye of the Agama), the householder also has the ritual of 'Swadhyaya' as a form of penance within the six daily duties. Therefore, at the beginning of scripture discourse, this verse is recited, and at the beginning of a text to be lectured or read, an oath is taken: "The original author of this is the omniscient God, the subsequent author is Ganadhar Deva, Prathiganadhar Deva. According to their words, this was composed by Shri Kundakundacharya. The speaker should read attentively, and the listeners should listen attentively." Gunadhara, Pushpadanta, and Bhutabali did the same. However, this is not the case in Sthavirakalpa. Devarshigani, the compiler of the eleven Angas accepted by the Sthavirakalpi after the Valabhi Vacana, clearly states that due to the famine in Magadha 980 years after Vir Nirvana, many ascetics died, and a large part of the Shruta was fragmented. Inspired by Shruta Bhakti and at the request of the Sangha for the benefit of future beings, he summoned the chosen monks of that time in Valabhi and compiled the fragmented or complete statements of the Agama according to his understanding.

The text concludes by stating that the original Shramana culture of India, the eternal Arhat or Nirgrantha or Jain culture, experienced laxity and divisions due to the prolonged famine in Magadha and later famines, and the shift from forest dwelling to living in Grihotpashraya. However, the steadfastness of Acharya Kundakunda saved the Mūlasangha or culture through overall control. This led to a reconciliation even among eternal adversaries. Brahmanical culture, during the Aranyaka and Upanishadic periods, borrowed concepts of liberation, asceticism, spirituality, Shishnadevatva, and philosophy from the original (Shramana) culture. Conversely, the spiritual, knowledge-meditation, and asceticism-filled Shramana culture adopted ritualistic practices from Brahmanical or Vedic culture. Through this exchange, the Digambara Baba Shiva became "Mahadeva." Although Brahmanical culture considers him the deity of destruction, his form clearly indicates that the end of the world comes through Nirgranthata. The text suggests that creation (Prajapatitva) and preservation (Vishnutva) are the forces that increase the cycle of existence. Brahmanical culture, which prioritized ritualistic violence, eventually proclaimed "Ahimsa Paramo Dharmaḥ" by the Mahabharata era. It is evident that the Shramana people were the original inhabitants of this Indian land or pre-Vedic men, and their culture is represented by the works of Acharya Kundakunda, the first expounder and protector of the Mūlasangha. The text further states that the partial descriptions available in various Prakrit languages of Indian schools like Ajivika, predating Gautam Buddha, clarify that the Aryans (nomads = nomadic = shepherds, ritualistic, and aggressive Brahmins or Vedic culture) were preceded by the Shramanas, and their original, developed, and scientific thought system was the same as that available in the common language (Prakrit) of Acharyas like Gunadhara, Dharasena, Bhutabali-Pushpadanta, and the devoted disciple of Bhadrabahu, Acharya Kundakunda. The author concludes by stating that he does not wish to disrespect older Acharyas, but those who claim a lack of specific achievements have not benefited Jain tradition; rather, they have caused harm by creating feelings of inferiority in the minds of practitioners, thereby weakening their efforts.