Mansaharno Prashna - Book Summary

Here is a comprehensive summary of the Jain text "Mansaharno Prashna" by Muniraj Shri Dhurandharvijayji, based on the provided pages:

The book, "Mansaharno Prashna" (The Question of Meat Consumption), authored by Muniraj Shri Dhurandharvijayji and published by Jeshingbhai Premabhai Sheth, addresses a controversial interpretation of a passage from the Bhagavati Sutra. The author aims to refute the claim, made by Shri Gopalbhai Jivabhai Patel in the "Prasthan" monthly magazine, that Lord Mahavir Swami consumed meat on one occasion. Muniraj Shri Dhurandharvijayji argues that such an interpretation is a misinterpretation and can lead to confusion among many.

The core of the argument is presented in several points:

1. The Strict Prohibition of Meat in Jain Agamas:

The author emphasizes that Jain scriptures (Agamas) unequivocally and repeatedly prohibit meat consumption. Examples are cited from the Suyagadanga Sutra (where monks are described as not consuming alcohol and meat) and the Sthananga Sutra and Uvavaiya Sutra. These texts explicitly list meat consumption (कुणिमाहारेणं - kunimāhāreṇaṁ) as one of the four reasons for binding karma that leads to rebirth in hell, alongside great violence, great attachment, and killing of five-sensed beings.
The Dasavaikalika Sutra and Uttaradhyayana Sutra are also mentioned as containing clear prohibitions against meat-eating.

2. Interpretation of Ambiguous Terms:

The author argues that when words like "māmsa" (માંસ) appear in scriptures like the Achara Sutra, their meaning must be understood in conjunction with the other passages that strictly forbid meat.
Ancient commentators like Acharya Shilanka have interpreted "māmsa" in such contexts in ways that do not contradict the overall prohibition. They suggest meanings like "external enjoyment" (ભોગ એટલે બાહ્ય પરિભેગ - bhog etle bahya paribhog) or "fruit containing seeds" (માંસ એટલે ફલને ગર્ભ - mānsa etle phalanē garbha).
Shri Haribhadra Suriji, a renowned logician, is cited as interpreting the word "pudgal" (પુદ્ગલ) as "mānsa" (માંસ) in one context but then clarifying that, in relation to the topic of vegetarianism, it refers to "that kind of fruit" (તથાવિધ ફળ - tathāvidh phal). This highlights a linguistic style where ambiguous words are used, but their intended meaning is context-dependent and often explained by the commentator.

3. The Inherent Nature of Meat:

The text strongly asserts that Lord Mahavir Swami and his disciples were and are always non-violent.
Meat, by its very nature, is considered to be non-living. However, the author, quoting Shri Hemchandrasuri's Yogashastra, states that meat is always contaminated with countless life forms that arise at the moment of slaughter and even when raw, cooking, or being cooked. The verse from the Yogashastra (Verse 33 of Prakash 3) powerfully states that meat is defiled by infinite life-forms and is like provisions for the path to hell, questioning who would consume it.
The author further supports this by referencing a verse that states that in raw, cooked, or discarded meat, nigoda (the lowest form of life) beings continuously originate.
Therefore, it is argued, a person of strong vows like Lord Mahavir would never consume meat, as it is inherently filled with infinite life.

4. Reinterpreting the Bhagavati Sutra Passage (Chapter 15):

The author addresses the specific passage in the Bhagavati Sutra's 15th chapter, which describes Revati offering medicine to Lord Mahavir for his illness.
The author presents the interpretation by commentators like Shri Abhaydev Suriji and Danashekhar Suriji. They explain the terms "Kapota" (કપોત) and "Mar" (માર) in this context.
- "Kapota" is explained as referring to two types of gourds (kūṣmāṇḍa - કોળાં) due to their color resembling a pigeon, or the fruits of a plant that resemble a pigeon in color. These are considered plants, thus harmless in terms of forbidden consumption.
- "Mar" is interpreted in two ways: either as a type of wind (vāyu - વાયુ) used to alleviate an ailment, or as a specific medicinal plant named "Marjara" or "Virālika." The phrase "kukkuta mānsaṁ" (કુકકટમાસકં) is then understood not as chicken meat but as a component of the medicine, possibly related to the "bijapuraka" (બીજોરું - citron) fruit.
The author refutes Gopalbhai Patel's interpretation of "Mar" as "killed by a cat" (બિલાડીએ મારેલ - bilāḍīē mārel). They argue that the grammatical form "mārita" (મારિત) would indicate "killed," whereas the word used implies being "processed" or "prepared with" (સંસ્કારેલ - sanskārel), similar to how dishes are prepared with yogurt or mustard.

5. The Nature of Revati and the Illness:

Revati, the woman who offered the medicine, is identified not as an ordinary woman but as a prominent lay follower (śrāvikā) with vows, who would never have offered meat, especially since Lord Mahavir had preached against the consumption of meat that leads to hellish rebirths.
The author contends that while Lord Mahavir's illness might have been caused by an extraordinary phenomenon like tejaleśyā (તેજલેશ્યા - a type of radiant psychic energy), this does not preclude the use of medicinal treatment. Even if the cause is unknown or supernatural, the effect (the illness) is on the body and can be treated with medical science.
The author quotes the Sushruta Samhita, a respected medical text, to show the medicinal properties of gourds (kūṣmāṇḍa) and citron (mātulunga - બીજોરું). Young gourds are described as being good for bile, middle ones for phlegm, and white ones as light, hot, digestive, and beneficial for various ailments and mental imbalances. Citron is also praised for its medicinal qualities.
The passage in the Sushruta Samhita mentioning "māṁsa" in relation to citron is interpreted as referring to the "garbha" or pulp of the fruit. This reinforces the idea that "māṁsa" could refer to the inner part of fruits.
The author further argues that medical science considers certain substances beneficial for specific ailments. For example, the Sushruta Samhita describes a certain type of bird (kukkuta - કુકકટ) as being very potent and potentially worsening inflammatory conditions like bile, suggesting that even from a medical perspective, meat would not be suitable for ailments related to bile, whereas plant-based remedies would be.

6. The Principle of Exemplar Action:

The author emphasizes that Lord Mahavir's actions set an example for his followers. If he were to consume meat, even once, it would open the door for others to do so.
The example of Buddhism is cited, where the alleged meat-eating of Buddha is believed to have contributed to the prevalence of meat consumption among Buddhists today. In contrast, the Jain community's strong aversion to meat is attributed to Lord Mahavir's unwavering stance.
The author concludes that it is inconceivable that Lord Mahavir, as a master of human nature, would ever engage in meat-eating, thereby providing a pathway for it in the world.

7. The Multi-layered Nature of Agamic Language:

The author explains that Jain Agamas were composed in a way that each sutra could be interpreted from four perspectives: Dravyanuyoga (substance), Ganitanuyoga (mathematics), Charanakarana Nuyoga (conduct), and Dharmanukatha (religious discourse).
Initially, these perspectives were interwoven. However, after Aryavajraswami, it became more common to associate specific sutras with particular anuyogas (perspectives).
This system explains why certain words with multiple meanings (like "māṁsa," "kapota," "māra") were used. These words were essential for understanding the full scope of the teachings within specific anuyogas. Changing these words would make the broader interpretations impossible.

In essence, the book "Mansaharno Prashna" is a strong defense of the Jain principle of ahimsa (non-violence) as it pertains to dietary practices. It meticulously refutes any suggestion that Lord Mahavir Swami, the epitome of non-violence, would have ever consumed meat, by analyzing the scriptures, the nature of meat, and the linguistic nuances of the Jain Agamas, supported by commentaries and medical texts.