Mahavir Ane Jamali Na Matbhednu Rahasya - Book Summary

Here is a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Mahavir ane Jamali na Matbhednu Rahasya" (The Mystery of the Disagreement between Mahavir and Jamali) by Sukhlal Sanghavi:

This text explores the theological and philosophical disagreement between Lord Mahavir, the 24th Tirthankara of Jainism, and his nephew and disciple, Jamali. The author, Sukhlal Sanghavi, draws parallels with the relationship between Lord Buddha and his cousin and disciple Devadatta to shed light on the underlying causes of Mahavir and Jamali's divergence.

Key Points and Comparisons:

Similarities with Devadatta: Both Devadatta and Jamali were from Kshatriya families. Devadatta was Buddha's disciple both in his ascetic life and as a relative. Jamali was Mahavir's nephew and son-in-law. Neither received a prominent position among their respective master's disciples despite their familial ties and discipleship. The text suggests that common shortcomings like a lack of proper assessment due to kinship, the inherent pride of a Kshatriya nature, and jealousy of others' prominence before their guru might have contributed to potential disagreements. Unlike Devadatta, there's no evidence of Jamali attempting to harm Mahavir. However, both formed their own separate followings during their gurus' lifetimes.
Literary Mentions: Devadatta is only mentioned in Buddhist literature, while Jamali is exclusively found in Jain literature. Buddhist texts identify Devadatta as the first "schism-maker" (Sandhabhedak), while Jain texts label Jamali as the first "negator" or "rejector" (Nihava), implying a similar role in creating a rift. Both passed away during their gurus' lifetimes.
Jain Sources and Jamali's Role: While Vedic and Buddhist literature doesn't mention Jamali, Jain literature presents a one-sided account. Digambara Jain tradition, which considers Mahavir unmarried, naturally wouldn't describe Jamali as his son-in-law. However, the absence of Jamali even as a nephew and disciple in Digambara literature is considered significant by scholars of both Jain traditions.
- Svetambara Literature: Jamali is mentioned in ancient Svetambara texts like Angas (e.g., Sthananga) and Upangas (e.g., Oupapatika). Later texts like Avasyakachurni and Visheshavashyakabhashya describe him as a "Nihava." The most detailed account is found in the Bhagavati Sutra.
Jamali's Biography: Jamali was a resident of Kshatriyakund, Mahavir's birthplace. He was the son of Mahavir's sister, Priyadarshana, and the husband of Mahavir's daughter, Sudarshana, making him Mahavir's relative through multiple connections. Though not a king, he was wealthy. He was attracted to Mahavir's teachings in an orchard outside Kshatriyakund and decided to become a monk. After considerable persuasion, his parents reluctantly agreed.
The Core Disagreement: The Nature of Action and Fruit: The central point of contention between Mahavir and Jamali was the timing and definition of success in an endeavor.
- Jamali's View: Jamali believed that an effort could only be considered successful when the intended final fruit was achieved. Until that point, the ongoing effort was not successful. This view separates the effort (sadhana) from the fruit (phala), treating them as distinct. He believed in a singular perspective (ekanta).
- Mahavir's View: Mahavir, on the other hand, held that even an ongoing effort, while not yet yielding the final result, could be considered successful or completed to the extent it had progressed. This perspective acknowledges that progress is being made and that the process itself is a form of achievement. It integrates the effort and the fruit, seeing the entire duration of the effort as the fruit. This aligns with his philosophy of Anekanta (multi-sidedness), particularly the distinction between Vyavahara Drishti (conventional/practical viewpoint) and Nishchaya Drishti (absolute/ultimate viewpoint).
Anekanta and the Disagreement: Mahavir's philosophy of Anekanta posits that truth is multifaceted and can be viewed from various perspectives. He distinguished between:
- Vyavahara Drishti: Based on gross experience, allowing for variations in perception. This view often differentiates between the means and the end and is accessible to the common person.
- Nishchaya Drishti: Based on subtle experience, leading to a unity of experience. This view considers the means and the end as identical and is understood by fewer people. Mahavir believed that true understanding and harmony arose from considering both perspectives. Following only Vyavahara Drishti could lead to divisive thinking and a lack of completion. Following only Nishchaya Drishti, while not harmful, would be impractical for societal progress, often leading to hypocrisy. Therefore, Mahavir advocated for following Vyavahara Drishti while keeping Nishchaya Drishti in mind for gradual progress. Jamali's disagreement stemmed from his adherence to only the Vyavahara Drishti of the situation, failing to grasp Mahavir's Nishchaya Drishti or the broader Anekanta perspective.
The Significance of Mahavir's Stance: The author ponders why Mahavir, known for his tolerance and forgiveness, did not overlook this "minor" disagreement. He suggests that Mahavir recognized the potential negative impact of Jamali's view on his followers. Jamali's perspective, which emphasizes only the final outcome, could lead to impatience and discouragement for those undertaking long spiritual or social endeavors. When faced with difficulties, individuals might abandon their efforts prematurely, blaming external factors rather than their own impatience. Mahavir's emphasis on the validity of ongoing effort was to encourage perseverance and prevent spiritual or social undertakings from faltering due to a lack of immediate, visible results.
Analogy of the Mango Tree: The text uses the analogy of planting mango trees to illustrate the difference in perspective. One planter gives up when the fruit is delayed due to natural disturbances, seeing the entire effort as a failure. The other planter, recognizing the gradual progress (roots, trunk, branches, flowers) as partial fulfillment, perseveres. This second planter embodies Mahavir's view: effort itself is a form of fruition, and progress made is a partial realization of the fruit. This understanding fosters resilience and allows one to continue until the final fruit is attained.
Connection to Bhagavad Gita: The author notes the similarity between Mahavir's teaching that an initiated effort has not been lost and is a cause of merit, even without the final fruit, and the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita. The Gita emphasizes action without attachment to results and the importance of continuous effort (Karma Yoga). The text cites verses from the Bhagavad Gita (Chapter 2, verses 40-41) that speak of the indestructibility of even a small part of Dharma and the right to act only on the effort, not the fruit.

In essence, the book explains that the disagreement between Mahavir and Jamali was not about a trivial matter but about a fundamental philosophical approach to effort and accomplishment, deeply rooted in the Jain principles of Anekanta. Mahavir championed a holistic view that recognized the value of the journey and the progress made, while Jamali focused solely on the ultimate destination, a perspective Mahavir deemed detrimental to sustained spiritual and worldly endeavors.