Jainacharya Nagarjun

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text about Acharya Nagarjun, written in English:

Book Title: Jainacharya Nagarjun Author: Prof. M. M. Joshi Publisher: Z_Jaganmohanlal_Pandit_Sadhuwad_Granth_012026.pdf Catalog Link: https://jainqq.org/explore/211055/1

This text, authored by Prof. M. M. Joshi of the Physics Department, Allahabad University, delves into the identity and historical context of Jain Acharya Nagarjun. It begins by addressing a mention of a "Rasvidya Acharya Nagarjun" by Al-Biruni in his work "India Description." Al-Biruni places this Nagarjun near Dehaik, in Saurashtra, and highlights his expertise in alchemy (Rasvidya). Al-Biruni notes that Nagarjun had written a treatise on this subject, which had become rare, and states that Nagarjun lived about a hundred years prior to him.

This reference by Al-Biruni leads to a significant scholarly debate regarding the identity of Nagarjun. If the Saurashtra-based Nagarjun lived around the 10th century, as suggested by Al-Biruni's proximity, it raises questions:

• Could it be the Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna? The Buddhist Nagarjuna is firmly placed in the 1st century BCE.
• Could it be the Siddha Nagarjuna? The Siddha Nagarjuna is documented as living in the 7th century CE and is associated with Nalanda. Al-Biruni, however, explicitly states Nagarjun was a resident of Saurashtra, which creates a discrepancy with the Nalanda association of Siddha Nagarjuna.
• Is there a third Nagarjun? Some scholars propose the existence of a third Nagarjun, distinct from the Buddhist and Siddha figures.

The author points out the difficulty in reconciling Al-Biruni's account with the established timelines of the Buddhist Nagarjuna (over a millennium before Al-Biruni) and Siddha Nagarjuna (a few centuries before Al-Biruni). The primary challenge with Siddha Nagarjuna is his association with Nalanda, contrasting with Al-Biruni's Saurashtra location.

The text then introduces findings from recent studies of Jain texts and a book by Dr. Rajendra Prakash Bhatnagar on Jain Ayurveda. These sources suggest the existence of a Nagarjun within the Jain tradition, also referred to as Siddha Nagarjun. The "Nagajunotpattistambhanak Tirthaavatar Prabandh" from Merutungaacharya's Prabandh Chintamani describes Nagarjun's birth and his attainment of Siddhahood. According to this, Nagarjun became a Siddha through the use of various medicinal preparations and learned the method of creating koti-vedhi rasa (a potent alchemical substance) after becoming a disciple of Acharya Padalipta.

Jain texts identify Nagarjun as a resident of "Dhank-giri" in Saurashtra. He is said to have received patronage from a Satavahana king, whom he granted a long life through alchemical transmutation. The "Lank-giri" caves are dated by historians to the 3rd century CE, implying Nagarjun was renowned as a chemist in Saurashtra around the 2nd or 3rd century CE. Dhank-giri is considered part of the Shatrunjaya mountain range in Saurashtra, near Vallabhīpura. While mentions of "Nagarjuni-vachana" or "Vallabhi-vachana" in Jain Agamas exist, the texts themselves are unavailable, further indicating Nagarjun's presence in Vallabhīpura around the 3rd century CE.

Dr. Bhatnagar's hypothesis is that this is the "third Nagarjun" who is distinct from the Buddhist and Nalanda Siddha Nagarjuna, and this is the figure Al-Biruni mentioned, albeit with an incorrect timeline.

The text further elaborates on Nagarjun's lineage within Jainism, stating he was a disciple of Acharya Padalipta Suri. The lives of Acharya Padalipta Suri are detailed in texts like Prabhavaka Charitra and Prabandh Kosh, placing him in the 1st century CE. According to Dr. Nemichandra Shastri, mentions of Padalipta Suri in texts like Visheshavashyak Bhashya and Nishoth-ni suggest a very ancient period for him. Padalipta was so named because he possessed a special ointment that allowed him to levitate. He also had a disciple named Skandila. It is believed that Nagarjun was also a disciple of Skandila, or possibly Padalipta directly. Prabandh Kosh indicates that the Satavahana king of Pratishthanpur was a contemporary of Acharya Padalipta. At that time, the king of Pataliputra was Murunda.

The text then explores the possible timeline of the Satavahana kingdom. Jayachandra Vidyalankar's work suggests that the Shālivāhana or Satavahana king of Pratishthanpur conquered the king Nahapan of Bharukach. This king later became famous as Vikramaditya, who moved from Pratishthanpur and conquered Ujjain. This Vikramaditya is identified as Gautamiputra Satakarni. The Vikram Samvat commenced in 57 BCE when this king, with the support of the Malvagana, expelled the Shakas.

Considering the rise of the Satavahana kingdom, which flourished from the 2nd century BCE to the 1st-2nd century CE, reaching its zenith between the 1st century BCE and the 1st century CE (approximately 100 years), it is plausible that Acharya Padalipta was honored in the court of King Hala of the Satavahana dynasty. The argument that the Dhank-giri caves belong to the 1st-2nd century CE is presented as more logical. This would place the Jain Nagarjun around the 1st-2nd century CE, aligning with his guru-disciple tradition.

The author also discusses the possible confusion regarding the Nasik inscription of Gautami Balashri, which mentions the accomplishments of both her son and grandson. While it's not impossible for a father and son to reign simultaneously, it's also possible that Gautami Balashri lived longer and was active during her grandson's reign. Therefore, definitively establishing Acharya Padalipta's contemporaries, particularly his connection to Vikramaditya, is crucial. If Padalipta was a contemporary of Vikramaditya and lived a long life, Nagarjun becoming his disciple in the 3rd century CE seems less likely, as such a long life would likely be documented in historical or Ayurvedic texts.

The text acknowledges that while some scholars like Beal place the Buddhist Nagarjuna in 33 BCE, others like Renou and Filliozat suggest the late 1st century CE. If the latter is accepted, then Buddhist and Jain Nagarjuns could be nearly contemporaries. Jain texts mention that Nagarjun established an alchemical crucible in a cave on Dhank mountain and experimented with alchemical and gold-related achievements. He also prepared recensions of Jain Agamas. The author notes significant similarities between the Buddhist and Jain Nagarjuns in their mastery of chemistry and their roles in presenting purified versions of various texts.

The author concludes by emphasizing the need for meticulous research into the life and times of Jain Acharya Nagarjun. They urge Jain scholars to not solely rely on Western scholars' dating but to integrate information from the Jain tradition and contemporary traditions for accurate chronological determination. A comprehensive review of all available material on Jain Nagarjun and a precise dating would be a significant achievement, requiring a collaborative effort from experts in Ayurveda, Jain literature, ancient history, and archaeology.

Finally, the text includes a philosophical excerpt from "Atma-prabodh" by Kumar Kavi, describing avidya (ignorance) and its progeny (ego, attachment, etc.) as a growing, unending family causing suffering.