Marmi Sant Anandghan Ane Temno Parampara Prapta Jain Chintandhara

Here is a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Marmi Sant Anandghan ane Temno Parampara Prapta Jain Chintandhara" by Nagin J. Shah:

This book, authored by Nagin J. Shah and published by ZZ_Anusandhan, explores the life and thought of the 17th-century mystic saint Anandghanji, and situates him within the traditional Jain philosophical stream.

Anandghanji's Works and the Need for Critical Editions:

• Anandghanji is primarily known for his 22 stavans (devotional songs) dedicated to the Tirthankaras. While the authenticity of the 23rd and 24th stavans is debated, the main challenge lies with his padas (verses).
• He is credited with composing over 72 padas in Hindi, known as 'Anandghan Bahottari'. However, the total number of padas attributed to him is 107, with many potentially misattributed.
• The author emphasizes the critical need for purified and critically edited versions of Anandghanji's padas. Many of the existing texts suffer from transcription errors and alterations by scribes, particularly Gujarati scribes who may not have fully understood Hindi, leading to changes based on their linguistic comprehension.
• The author highlights that a popular pada previously believed to be Anandghanji's, "Ab hum amar bhaye na marenge," actually belongs to Dhyanrai of Agra (born 1733 Vikram).

Anandghanji as a Mystic, Not a Theorist:

• Anandghanji is characterized as a marmi sant (mystic saint) rather than a tattvachintak (philosophical thinker). His pronouncements stem from inner insight, intuition, and innate wisdom, not from intellectual dissection or analysis.
• His emphasis is on direct spiritual experience and self-realization, not on intellectual contemplation or debate. He explicitly states, "Logic and debate, the tradition of argument, none can reach the other shore."
• He encourages readers to perceive the "inner pot" (ghat antar), ignite the "inner light" (antar jyoti), drink the "unadulterated essence" (nirvikalp ras), attain steadfastness in natural disposition (sahaj subhav thirta), listen to the unstruck sound (ajapa ki anhad dhuni), taste the great nectar (ram maharas), drink the unapproachable elixir (agam piyala), find bliss in self-knowledge (nij parche sukh), and strive for mental equanimity (chittasamadh).

The Core of Anandghanji's Vision: Non-duality and Pure Love:

• Anandghanji's inner vision is fully awakened, illuminating all aspects of existence. He embodies self-effulgent light (swayamjyoti sarup), needing no external illumination or the light of intellect.
• Intellectual light, he states, is divisive, creating distinctions that lead to fear, sorrow, and delusion, referencing Upanishadic concepts: "From the second comes fear. Where there is oneness, there is no delusion, no sorrow."
• He emphasizes that seeing duality leads to a cycle of death, whereas the light of the self and inner intuition reveals non-duality, which eradicates fear, sorrow, and delusion.
• His words express the realization of non-duality: "Call him Ram, call him Rehman, call him Krishna, call him Mahadev. Call him Parshvanath, call him Brahma, all is Brahma itself. The vessel may be called by different names, but it is all clay. Similarly, though fragmented in conception, you are of an unbroken form." This echoes Upanishadic wisdom like "Vachārambhanaṁ vikāro nāmadheyaṁ mṛttiketyeva satyam" (Speech is a mere name given to modification; clay is the reality).
• This realization of non-duality is the source of unconditioned love (nirupadhik prem), which is pure and unwavering: "Love... blossoms... liquefies... blends." Those who savor the essence of self-experience drink the nectar of love, and the arrow of love strikes true. Where there is this love born of non-dual realization, there is no doubt or hesitation: "Where there is love, there is no doubt."

Opposition to Divisions and Advocacy for Universalism:

• Anandghanji strongly opposes divisions based on caste, sect, and gender. Sectarian divisions (gachchha bhed) are seen as representative of broader divisions like denominational or path-based differences.
• Through verses like "I am not male, I am not female," he conveys that the soul is beyond gender distinctions, and those who have attained self-realization are also beyond these divisions.
• The text recounts an anecdote illustrating this point: When Mirabai wished to meet the Goswamis in Vrindavan, they refused, stating they did not meet women. Mirabai responded, "I thought there was only one Purusha (male) in the entire universe, and all others were Gopis (female). Please explain who this other Purusha is." Her words dissolved the Goswamis' ego, and they went to honor her.
• All mystic saints are presented as strong opponents of divisions and hierarchies.

Anandghanji's Connection to Jain Philosophy:

• Despite not being a theorist, Anandghanji presents the core ideas of the Jain philosophical tradition, particularly through his stavans.
• He is deeply attracted to anekānta-vāda (the doctrine of manifold aspects), which supports the vision of non-duality, unconditioned love, and intellectual non-violence. Anekānta is seen as the synthesis of all perspectives and ideologies.
• Jainism, according to this interpretation, is not a closed system but an ever-evolving one, embracing all viewpoints without disrespect, including materialistic ones like those of Charvaka or Karl Marx.
• Anandghanji's verse "Six philosophies, called the limbs of Jin, who follows the six limbs of Nyaya; Worshiping the feet of Jinvar, one adores the six philosophies" (ṣaḍdarśana jin-aṅga bhaṇī je, nyāya ṣaḍaṅga jo sādhē re | namijinavaranā charaṇupāsaka, ṣaḍdarśana ārādhē re ||) and "From the womb of Lokayata..." (lokāyatik kūkha jinavarani...) suggest an inclusive approach, viewing the "six philosophies" as representative of all available philosophies.
• The essence of anekānta-vāda and Anandghanji's teachings lies in the understanding that Jainism is a synthesis of all perspectives, and these perspectives are infinite and ever-expanding. Jainism is a continuously developing, open system, not a finalized or closed one. Embracing this truth keeps it vibrant and rich; otherwise, claiming its completeness would be its demise. This necessitates the study of all Indian and non-Indian thought, including figures like Freud, Jung, Hegel, Kant, Schopenhauer, Aurobindo, Rabindranath Tagore, Shankara, Buddha, and Dharmakirti.
• In terms of conduct, Jain acharyas emphasize that the Bhagavan did not issue absolute commands like "you must do this" or "you must not do this." Instead, actions should be determined by individual discretion, considering the person, place, and time. Similarly, following anekānta-vāda, it should be understood that the truth is not simply "this" and not "that," but rather a synthesis of all viewpoints considered by the venerable ones in their respective times and places.

Specific Examples from Anandghanji's Stavans:

• The first stavan refutes the practice of Sati (widow immolation) based on the universally accepted doctrine of karma and also rejects the idea of God as the creator of the world, as "play" is for pleasure, not for the absolutely blissful one.
• The sixth stavan explains key aspects of the Jain theory of karma in Jain terminology.
• The twelfth stavan describes the nature of the soul according to Jainism.
• The twentieth stavan refutes various philosophical views on the soul from a Jain perspective.
• The eighth stavan lists categories of beings from the subtle nigoda to the intelligent five-sensed beings.
• Throughout his stavans and padas, Anandghanji also mentions concepts like nayavāda (theory of standpoints), dravya-guṇa-paryāya-vāda (substance-attribute-mode theory), saptabhangi (sevenfold predication), and nishchaya-vyavahāra (ultimate-conventional truth). However, the text notes that these references are indicative and do not delve into excessive detail.

Detailed Analysis of a Verse from the Twelfth Stavan:

The book then extensively analyzes the lines: "Nirakar sakar sachetan, Nirakar abhed sangrahak, bhedgrahak sakaro re, Darshan-gyan dubhed chetana, vastu grahan vyaparo re." (Unmanifest, manifest, conscious; Unmanifest embraces non-duality, manifest grasps duality; Consciousness, knowledge are two aspects of awareness, the activity of grasping objects.)

This section delves into the distinction between darshan (perception/intuition) and gyan (knowledge) in Jainism.

• Meaning of 'Darshan': The word 'darshan' is used in Jainism in two senses: (1) faith/belief and (2) a type of cognition. The use of 'darshan' in the sense of faith is rare outside Upanishads, Jain, and Buddhist traditions. In the verse, 'darshan' refers to a type of cognition.

• Distinction between Darshan and Gyan: Both darshan and gyan are forms of cognition. The debate among Jain thinkers lies in their precise difference and relationship.

• First View (as expressed by Anandghanji): Consciousness, whether unmanifest or manifest, is dual. The light of consciousness is both unmanifest and manifest. The activity of consciousness in grasping objects can be unmanifest or manifest. This activity of consciousness is also called upayoga (application/employment) in Jain terminology.

  • Nirakar Upayoga (unmanifest application): This is generally considered darshan.
  • Sakar Upayoga (manifest application): This is generally considered gyan.
  • In simpler terms, cognition is of two types: unmanifest (darshan) and manifest (gyan).
  • Further clarification: Unmanifest cognition (darshan) is general cognition (samanya grahi bodh), and manifest cognition (gyan) is specific cognition (vishesh grahi bodh). This aligns with the Sanmattitarkaprakaraṇa (2.11): "What grasps the general is darshan, what grasps the specific is gyan."
  • This view implies that darshan precedes gyan, as one must grasp the general before grasping the specific. This is supported by the Tattvarthabhāshya commentary by Siddhasenagani (2.9): "In the progression from formless to formed, there is a sequence; but he who, without having perceived the general, rushes towards the specific..."

• Second View (Counterarguments): Some Jain thinkers disagree. They argue that the soul is inherently general- and specific-aspects. True cognition (praman) grasps both. Cognition that grasps only the general or only the specific is not considered true cognition.

  • These thinkers hold that both darshan and gyan grasp both general and specific aspects. Their argument then focuses on how to explain the difference and sequential generation of darshan and gyan.
  • Their resolution: Grasping the nature of the self (svarupa) is darshan, while grasping external objects is gyan (both being general- and specific-aspects). This is supported by the Dhavala commentary (p. 147).
  • Kundakundacharya's statement "Ditti appapaya cheva" (perception is of one's own self) in Niyamasara (Gatha 160) supports the idea that darshan is self-revealing.
  • However, this raises questions about sequential generation. If 'svarupa' (self) in "grasping the nature of the self" is interpreted as 'knowledge-nature' or 'knowledge', it could resolve the issue, making the knowledge of knowledge (gyan nu gyan) itself darshan. This reverses the order, suggesting gyan precedes darshan.
  • But in Jainism, the knowledge of knowledge is self-awareness (swasanvedan). Thus, the concept of sequential order is not applicable; only simultaneity (yugapat) is accepted.

• Alternative Explanation for the Second View: The difference between general- and specific-aspect grasping darshan and gyan, and their sequence, can be explained differently.

  • Nirvikalpa (non-conceptual) vs. Savikalpa (conceptual): Those holding the first view may use terms like nirvikalpa bodh for general cognition and savikalpa bodh for specific cognition.
  • Considering 'vikalpa' as 'thought' or 'deliberation', proponents of the second view might suggest that darshan is the non-deliberative grasp of general- and specific-aspects, while gyan is the deliberative grasp. The object of both is the same, but darshan grasps it without thought, while gyan grasps it with thought.
  • This is comparable to Nyaya-Vaisheshika thinkers like Prashastapada and Jayanta Bhatta, who distinguish between nirvikalpa pratyaksha (non-conceptual perception) and savikalpa pratyaksha (conceptual perception). Both grasp the same object, but nirvikalpa grasps substances, attributes, actions, generals, etc., in an undivided form, while savikalpa grasps them in a divided form. The former precedes the latter.
  • Interestingly, in the context of yogis, the order can be reversed: savikalpa contemplation leads to savikalpa cognition, followed by nirvikalpa contemplation and nirvikalpa cognition. This suggests gyan first and darshan later, which is not contradictory.

Comparative Study with Other Indian Philosophies:

The book highlights the need for Jain scholars and researchers to study other Indian philosophical systems to understand how they differentiate between cognitive consciousness (gyan rup bodh) and perceptive consciousness (darshan rup bodh), and what forms the basis of these distinctions.

• Sankhya-Yoga: This system clearly distinguishes between consciousness (chitta) and the self (purusha). Chitta is the knower with knowledge, and purusha is the seer with perception.

  • Chitta transforms into the form of the object, thereby knowing it. This transformation of chitta is called chittavritti (mental modification) and is considered gyan.
  • The reflection of chittavritti falls on the purusha. This reflection, or the perception of the chittavritti by the purusha, is darshan.
  • As soon as a chittavritti arises, its reflection falls on the purusha. The chitta is never unperceived by the purusha. "Always known are the mental modifications by their lord, the Purusha." (Yoga Sutra 4.18).
  • Thus, perception (darshan) is only possible through mental modifications (chittavritti). Knowledge (gyan) must arise before perception (darshan). In this sense, there is a logical sequence. However, their origination is simultaneous (yugapat).
  • If the technical jargon is set aside, Sankhya-Yoga suggests that knowledge of an object is gyan, and knowledge of that knowledge is darshan. This conclusion closely aligns with the Jain view where external object-grasping is gyan, and self-grasping is darshan. If 'self' is interpreted as 'knowledge-self' or 'knowledge', then this becomes indistinguishable.

• Difference between Sankhya-Yoga and Jainism: Sankhya-Yoga considers darshan and gyan as distinct qualities to such an extent that they cannot be considered qualities of the same element. Jainism, while considering them distinct, does not deem them so different as to preclude them from being qualities of the same element.

• Buddhism: Buddhism also accepts a distinction between perceptive consciousness (darshan rup bodh) and cognitive consciousness (gyan rup bodh).

  • In the Pitakas, gyan-darshan are presented as the fruits of meditation. Ghoshaka's Abhidharmāmṛta states: "By cultivating meditation, the gain of knowledge and perception." This indicates yogic-level gyan-darshan.
  • Buddha's description as "knowing and seeing" is significant. He first knew the Four Noble Truths and then saw them ("ariyasaccāni avecca passati" - Sutta Nipata, 229).
  • Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya (8.27) states: "For knowledge and perception, meditation." Yasomitra's explanation clarifies: "Jnanam darshanaya cha – for knowledge and for perception. Here, knowledge is wisdom connected with mind-consciousness (manovijñāna), arising from deliberation (vikalpāt). Perception is wisdom connected with eye-consciousness (cakṣurvijñāna), non-deliberative (avikalpikā)." In this context, 'eye' refers to divine sight.
  • The conclusion is that the yogic gyan and darshan are the deliberative wisdom (savikalpika prajña) and non-deliberative wisdom (nirvikalpika prajña) that arise sequentially from meditation. The sequence is gyan first, then darshan, as indicated by "avecca passati." This clearly suggests gyan is deliberative consciousness (savichara bodh) from deliberative meditation, and darshan is non-deliberative consciousness (nirvichara bodh) from non-deliberative meditation.
  • In the state of withdrawal (vyutthāna), gyan and darshan also exist. Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya (1.43) states that the senses (cakṣu) see, and the mind knows. According to elders, the functions of mind are investigation (santarana – iha, uha) and determination (vottapana – nishchaya prakriya). The five sense-consciousnesses lack investigation and determination. Ghoshaka's Abhidharmāmṛta states that the five sense-consciousnesses cannot discriminate, but the mind can.
  • This implies that in the state of withdrawal, darshan refers to non-conceptual sensory perception, and gyan refers to conceptual sensory perception and other conceptual cognitions. Here, the order is perception first, then cognition.
  • Crucially, "non-conceptual" here cannot mean "general-grasping" because, according to Buddhists, generality itself does not exist; it is a concept. Therefore, "non-conceptual" means "non-deliberative," and "conceptual" means "deliberative." This distinction between deliberative and non-deliberative consciousness applies to both the yogic states and the states of withdrawal.
  • Similar to Jainism, Buddhist tradition holds that the same element (mind/self) has both knowledge and perception. Furthermore, knowledge is self-awareness. All knowledge is self-witnessed. However, the Buddhist tradition does not differentiate between external object-grasping as gyan and self-awareness as darshan.

In conclusion, the book emphasizes that studying other philosophical systems can provide valuable insights for resolving the debated distinctions between darshan and gyan within Jainism. Pandit Shri Sukhlalji is cited as an exemplary modern scholar in this comparative approach.