Kya Shastro Ko Chunoti Di Ja Sakti Hai Shanka Samadhan - Book Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary of the Jain text "Kya Shastro Ko Chunoti Di Ja Sakti Hai Shanka Samadhan" by Amarmuni, based on the provided pages:

This text is a question-and-answer session where the author, Amarmuni, addresses accusations that he has challenged Jain scriptures. The core of the discussion revolves around the author's view on the authenticity and nature of Jain scriptures in light of scientific advancements, particularly the moon landing.

Key Points and Arguments:

Challenging "Texts," Not "Scriptures": Amarmuni clarifies that he has not challenged "Shastra" (scriptures or sacred texts) in the true sense. He defines "Shastra" as sacred religious texts that inspire spiritual life and are essentially divine pronouncements (Bhagvavanvani). He argues that one can challenge "granth" (books or texts) that are merely physical descriptions or contain inaccuracies, but not true scriptures. He points out that the very title of his article, "Kya Shastro Ko Chunoti Di Ja Sakti Hai?" (Can Scriptures be Challenged?), uses "Kya" (Can/Whether) to indicate that scriptures cannot be challenged.
Critique of Critics: Amarmuni expresses dismay that some, including respected Muni-raj (monks), misinterpret his stance. He believes they either haven't read his article thoroughly, haven't understood it, or have ulterior motives. He specifically addresses criticisms from "Samveg Darshan" and "Shri Doshiji," whom he accuses of resorting to insults and abuse ("gaaliyaan") when they lack logical arguments or evidence. He states he will not be swayed by criticism or abuse, prioritizing the establishment of truth over personal reputation.
The Moon Landing and Jain Cosmology: A central theme is the American moon landing and its apparent contradiction with some Jain cosmological texts, particularly "Chandra Pragyaapti." Amarmuni was one of the first to raise this issue, suggesting that texts compiled long after Lord Mahavir and influenced by external factors might not be divine pronouncements but rather scholarly works by Acharyas. He believes the scientific evidence disproving earlier interpretations of celestial bodies necessitates a re-evaluation.
Critique of Doshiji's Responses: Amarmuni finds Doshiji's responses to the moon landing issue to be weak and evasive. He criticizes Doshiji for using hypothetical phrasing ("if it is assumed...") and failing to directly counter the scientific evidence with scriptural arguments. Amarmuni argues that Doshiji accepts the scientific moon landing while simultaneously trying to reconcile it with scriptures that describe the moon in fantastical terms (e.g., adorned with crystal-like vehicles, pulled by thousands of animals). He likens Doshiji's stance to Duryodhana's clinging to hope in a weak ally after losing strong ones.
Debunking the "Demons' Laughter" Theory: Amarmuni dismisses the idea that the sounds recorded during the moon landing were celestial beings or demons. He points out the logical fallacy: if these beings existed, why didn't they intervene on the moon itself? He further clarifies, citing newspaper reports, that the sounds were likely pre-recorded tapes played by the astronauts for amusement, a fact that Doshiji apparently omitted in his writing.
The Nature of Scriptures and "Prakshep" (Interpolations): Amarmuni asserts that not every word in the current 32 Agamas (Jain scriptures) is necessarily the direct word of God. He explains that these scriptures were compiled centuries after Lord Mahavir, during periods of famine and external influence, allowing for changes and additions ("parivardhan" and "prakshep"). He notes that even great scholars like Gautam Gandhar, who possessed four types of knowledge and held fourteen Purvas, could err. He criticizes those who blindly accept every word as divine, calling it attachment to "shastra-moh" (attachment to scriptures). He identifies inconsistencies, un-Jain-like descriptions, and vulgar content in some texts as evidence that they are not entirely divine pronouncements. He believes only what promotes spiritual growth and the practice of detachment (Veetaraag Sadhana) is truly divine.
Support from Other Scholars: Amarmuni cites statements from respected figures like Hastiimalji Maharaj and Prabhu Dasbhai, who acknowledge the possibility of interpolations and changes in scriptures. He uses their words to show that his view is not entirely unique and that even proponents of tradition admit to scriptural alterations.
The "Papashrut" (Unrighteous/Sinful Scriptures): Amarmuni explains why he considers certain texts, like those dealing with astrology ("Jyotish"), as "Papashrut" based on other Jain Agamas like Samavayaanga Sutra and Aavashyak Sutra. He argues that if ancient scriptures categorize astrological texts as "Papashrut" and prohibit monks from engaging with them, it's inconsistent to then attribute them to the enlightened Lord Mahavir. He views the inclusion of such material as a misrepresentation of the truly detached nature of a Tirthankara. He also refutes the argument that Bhadrabahu Swami's knowledge of astrology somehow legitimizes it, stating that Bhadrabahu's expertise was from his pre-ascetic life and that he would not have acted against ascetic principles.
The "Gey" (Knowable) vs. "Upadey" (Worthwhile) Distinction: Amarmuni criticizes the argument that certain scriptural passages, like those on astrology, are merely "gey" (knowable) information and not "hey" (to be rejected) or "upadey" (to be adopted). He calls this "shallow thinking" and compares it to counting the hairs on a donkey. He argues that any knowledge not contributing to spiritual growth, detachment, or self-realization is a waste of precious time. He uses analogies to illustrate the absurdity of pursuing knowledge without a purpose or benefit. He believes that if science can be considered imperfect because it's still evolving, then scriptures, which are also limited in their description of the infinite, are similarly imperfect.
Science and Scripture Compatibility: Amarmuni acknowledges that science is incomplete but argues that this doesn't automatically invalidate its findings, especially when based on experimentation and observation. He asserts that the moon landing and the return of moon rocks are verifiable facts. He finds it laughable to suggest that scientists, capable of such achievements, would mistakenly identify a mountain as the moon. He believes the current scientific understanding is unlikely to be overturned in the way critics hope. He emphasizes that clinging to scriptural descriptions of the moon that are not supported by observable reality is a disservice to both science and religion.
The Purpose of the Discussion: Amarmuni states his intention is not to cause disbelief but to protect the faith of the public in Lord Mahavir and his true spiritual teachings. He draws a clear distinction between genuine scriptures that awaken the soul and texts that are factual descriptions of the physical world, which may be disproven by science. He sees his efforts as correcting misconceptions and clarifying the true meaning of "Shastra."
Concluding the Debate: Amarmuni decides to conclude the discussion due to the lack of substantial counter-arguments and the repetitive nature of the opposition's points. He expresses a willingness to engage further if a truly intellectual and evidence-based discussion arises, preferably in a public forum. He reiterates his belief that it's better to acknowledge when scientific discoveries contradict older texts than to force an illogical reconciliation.

In essence, Amarmuni champions a critical yet respectful approach to Jain scriptures, distinguishing between core spiritual teachings and descriptive cosmological or scientific accounts that may be subject to revision in light of new knowledge. He advocates for intellectual honesty and a focus on the essence of spirituality, even if it means questioning or re-interpreting certain traditional texts.