Maha Pundit Rahul Sankrutyayan Ke Jain Dharm Sambandhi Mantavyo Ki Samalochna - Book Summary

Here is a comprehensive summary in English of the provided Jain text, "Maha Pundit Rahul Sankrutyayan ke Jain Dharm Sambandhi Mantavyo ki Samalochna" by Prof. Sagarmal Jain:

Critique of Mahapandit Rahul Sankrityayan's Views on Jainism

This critical review by Prof. Sagarmal Jain examines the views expressed by the renowned scholar Mahapandit Rahul Sankrityayan concerning Jainism. The author notes that while Rahul Sankrityayan was a prolific writer on various aspects of Indian literature and philosophy, his contribution to Jain philosophy was significantly limited. The review primarily focuses on Sankrityayan's discussions on Jainism within his work "Darshan-Digdarshan" and his interpretations of Buddhist texts that mention Jainism.

Key Points of Critique:

Reliance on Buddhist Sources: Prof. Jain points out that Sankrityayan's understanding of Jainism, particularly regarding Lord Mahavir and the concept of Chatur-yam Samvara (four vows), is largely based on Buddhist scriptures like the Dighanikaya. He argues that this presents an incomplete and often biased perspective, as Buddhist texts are written from a critical viewpoint. Sankrityayan could have provided a more balanced analysis by consulting non-Buddhist Jain sources.
Misattribution of Chatur-yam Samvara: A major criticism is Sankrityayan's assertion that Chatur-yam Samvara, as described in Buddhist texts, was Mahavir's teaching. Prof. Jain clarifies that this concept, comprising vows related to refraining from killing, lying, stealing, and unnecessary possessions, was actually the doctrine of the 23rd Tirthankara, Parshvanath. It was only later that Mahavir incorporated these vows into his "Panch-maha-vrata" (five great vows) by adding the vow of celibacy (Brahmacharya) or abstaining from sensual pleasures. The Buddhist scriptures, when mentioning Mahavir in this context, likely conflated the teachings due to the merger of Parshvanath's Nigantha tradition into Mahavir's.
Interpretation of the Dighanikaya Passage: Prof. Jain meticulously analyzes the specific passage from the Dighanikaya that Sankrityayan cites. He argues that Sankrityayan's translation and interpretation of terms like "vari" (water) and "yutto" (connected/engaged) are flawed.
- He contends that "vari" in this context likely refers to "sin" or "that which is to be restrained" rather than literally "water," citing other Jain scriptures where "vari" is used in the sense of sin. The interpretation of "water" leads to the misconstrued idea that Jain monks abstained from all water, whereas they only abstained from using water with living beings.
- He also disputes the translation of "yutto" as "engaged in restraining" or "abstaining," suggesting that "yato" (restrained or controlled) would be a more accurate reading based on subsequent descriptions and potential linguistic variations. The commentator of the Sumangalavilasini, and by extension Sankrityayan, is seen as contributing to this misinterpretation.
Concept of Sarvajna (Omniscience): Sankrityayan's classification of Mahavir as an "omniscientist" is discussed. While Mahavir is indeed called "Sarvajna" in Jain tradition, Prof. Jain explains that in ancient times, this term primarily meant "self-knower" (Atma-jna). The later, more developed understanding of omniscience, which implies knowledge of all substances and their permutations across all time, was established later. Sankrityayan, by adopting this later interpretation, inadvertently falls into the same trap as the Buddhist tradition, which criticized Mahavir based on this evolved definition of omniscience. Prof. Jain highlights that similar misinterpretations of the meaning of "Sarvajna" also occurred for Buddha in later Buddhist literature.
Emphasis on Physical Austerities: Sankrityayan's observation that Jainism initially emphasized physical actions and austerities is partially accepted but qualified. Prof. Jain reiterates that Sankrityayan's view is again based on the presentation of Jainism in Buddhist literature. He asserts that Jainism, like Buddhism, considers mental actions (Manas-karma) as paramount. However, it views physical actions (Kaya-karma) as an essential outcome and manifestation of mental states. Jainism rejects a duality between thought and action, considering a discrepancy between the two as a form of deception. While Mahavir did emphasize physical austerities, it was not merely about self-mortification; he also valued internal austerities like study, service, and meditation. Therefore, portraying Mahavir as solely focused on the physical aspect is considered inappropriate.
Development of Anekantavada and Syadvada: The claim that the development of Jainism's Anekantavada (non-absolutism) and Syadvada (conditional predication) originated from Sanjaya Belatthiputta's conditionalism is deemed not entirely accurate. Prof. Jain suggests that these Jain concepts, along with Buddhist Vbajjyavad and Shunyata, evolved from Upanishadic quadruples and the Vbajjyavadi perspective.
Jain Cosmology and Five Elements: Sankrityayan's mention of five Jain elements (Jiva, Ajiva, Dharma, Akasha, and Pudgala) is also found to be flawed. He incorrectly includes "Ajiva" as a separate category and omits "Adharma." In Jain philosophy, Dharma, Adharma, Akasha, and Pudgala are all considered categories of "Ajiva" (non-living).
Impact on Occupations: Sankrityayan's view that Jainism's strict adherence to ahimsa in relation to living beings in earth, water, etc., led its followers to abandon agriculture and become merchants, thus becoming parasitic rather than productive, is partially acknowledged but considered incomplete. Prof. Jain points out that many Jain communities in regions like Bundelkhand, Mewar, Maharashtra, and Karnataka are still actively involved in agriculture. He also clarifies the Jain perspective on violence in agriculture, stating that householders are not responsible for unintentional harm to creatures that occurs during their livelihood. Furthermore, Jainism's principle of ahimsa does not render individuals cowardly; it prohibits aggressive violence but permits defensive violence for self-protection.

Conclusion:

Prof. Sagarmal Jain concludes that while Mahapandit Rahul Sankrityayan's views on Jainism contain elements of truth, they are often incomplete, one-sided, and sometimes inaccurate. This is primarily attributed to his insufficient engagement with authentic Jain sources and an over-reliance on interpretations derived from Buddhist literature. The critique aims to highlight these discrepancies and provide a more accurate understanding of Jain philosophy and its history.