Mahavir Ka Garbhapaharan Ek Vastavik Ghatana

Here's a comprehensive summary in English of the Jain text "Mahavir ka Garbhapaharan Ek Vastavik Ghatana" by Shilchandrasuri:

The book "Mahavir ka Garbhapaharan Ek Vastavik Ghatana" (Lord Mahavir's Conception Transfer: A Real Event) by Shilchandrasuri argues for the authenticity of the event where Lord Mahavir's conception was transferred from Devananda, a Brahmin woman, to Trishala, a Kshatriya woman. The author addresses skepticism from scholars who consider this event unscientific and impossible, especially given the time period of 2600 years ago.

The text highlights that according to Jain scriptures, Tirthankaras are not born in Brahmin families. Therefore, Lord Mahavir, initially conceived by Devananda, was transferred by the divine being Hari-Nagameshi, under the direction of Indra, to the womb of Trishala. This event is known in Jain scriptures as 'Garbhapaharan' or 'Garbhasankraman'.

The author then refutes two prevalent scholarly explanations for this event:

1. The "Child-Lending" Theory (Pandit Sukhlalji): This theory suggests that Trishala, unable to have children, adopted Devananda's son, and this story was later embellished into a conception transfer. Shilchandrasuri argues that there is no evidence of any close relationship or even acquaintance between Devananda and Trishala, making this theory implausible and difficult to accept.

2. The "Misinterpreted Disease" Theory (Dr. Jagdishchandra Jain): This theory posits that Devananda's pregnancy was lost due to a disease called 'Nagodar' or 'Nagameshapahrita' mentioned in Ayurvedic texts, where the fetus dies in the womb. The author contends that this is a misinterpretation. Firstly, the Jain scriptures clearly state that Devananda's pregnancy was healthy, as was the child born to Trishala. Secondly, the scripture describes a transfer of a living fetus, not the death of a fetus. The author also questions the naming of the disease 'Nagameshapahrita,' suggesting its meaning implies a taking away by Nagamesha (a deity) rather than a death, and argues that if a woman's womb was affected by such a disease, Jain scholars would have no reason to record it unless it had a connection to Mahavir's life.

Shilchandrasuri further addresses the argument that the conception transfer was created to portray the Brahmin caste negatively. He argues that true devotees of Tirthankaras would not associate such a questionable event with their revered deity. He also points out that prominent scholars and devotees like Bhadrabahuswami and Sudharmaswami, who were themselves Brahmins, would not have invented such a slanderous story against their own caste.

The author clarifies the Jain perspective on the caste of Tirthankaras. He explains that when the scriptures list castes in which Tirthankaras do not occur (such as the poorest, insignificant, or beggar castes), the Brahmin caste is listed separately, not as part of these inferior categories. This implies that Brahmins were not considered inherently inferior but were deemed unsuitable for Tirthankara births because they had validated violent practices like animal and human sacrifices through their Vedic rituals, which directly contradicted the Jain principles of absolute non-violence championed by Tirthankaras.

Regarding the name of the disease 'Nagameshapahrita,' the author suggests an alternative explanation: that the event of Mahavir's conception transfer by Hari-Nagameshi might have become widely known. Later, if a woman suffered a pregnancy loss due to a disease, people might have avoided harsh words like "your child died" and instead said, "your fetus was 'Nagameshapahrita'," implying it was taken away by Nagamesha, similar to what happened to Mahavir's conception. This, he argues, is a more plausible explanation than the disease theory.

Finally, Shilchandrasuri criticizes those who dismiss religious events without scientific backing, labelling them as "blind devotees of science." He contrasts their acceptance of modern scientific marvels like test-tube babies with their reluctance to acknowledge the possibility of advanced knowledge in ancient times that could enable events like conception transfer. He concludes by emphasizing that the conception transfer is supported by numerous Jain scriptures (Kalsutra, Acharya Sutra, Vivah Pannatti Sutra) and archaeological evidence (sculptures found in Mathura depicting Hari-Nagameshi's conception transfer). He asserts that the theory of the disease 'Nagameshapahrita' lacks any textual support. He states that if some individuals reject these scriptural and archaeological proofs as mere "religious beliefs," there is no recourse. He humorously suggests that these individuals will readily accept future scientific demonstrations of fetal transplantation as scientific miracles without hesitation.