Nirgranth Sampraday Ni Prachinta - Book Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Nirgranth Sampraday ni Prachinta" by Sukhlal Sanghavi, focusing on the antiquity of the Nirgranth tradition:

The book explores the antiquity of the Nirgranth tradition within the broader context of Shraman (ascetic) traditions in India.

1. The Nature of Shraman Traditions:

The Shraman tradition is defined as being contrary to the Brahmanical or Vedic religious traditions.
These Shraman traditions existed in some form and in some regions of India even before the advent of the Vedic tradition.
There were numerous branches and sub-branches of Shraman traditions, including Sankhya, Jainism, Buddhism, and Ajivika.
Many of these ancient Shraman branches initially opposed the Vedic tradition but gradually merged into it due to various reasons. Examples include the Vaishnava and Shaiva traditions, which were initially distinct and even antagonistic to the Vedic tradition but are now considered part of it. Similarly, Sankhya, once considered non-Vedic, is now seen as Vedic.

2. Enduring Shraman Traditions:

Despite the assimilation of some Shraman traditions, others, like Jainism and Buddhism, continue to assert their non-Vedic identity, and Vedic scholars also recognize them as such.
The defining characteristics of the Shraman tradition are:
- They do not accept the authority of the Vedas as uncreated or divinely authored.
- They do not accept the Brahmin class as superior due to birth or as inherently entitled to the role of gurus.
Instead, all Shraman traditions accept a supreme human being as the propounder of their sect and consider their words as the ultimate authority. They prioritize virtue over birth and accept ascetics or renunciates as gurus.

3. The Nirgranth Tradition and its Identity:

The Nirgranth tradition is specifically identified as the Jain tradition.
While words like Shraman, Bhikshu, Angar, Muni, Sadhu, Tapasvi, Parivrajaka, Arhat, Jin, and Tirthankar were commonly used for the ascetic class in various Shraman traditions (including Buddhist and Ajivika), the term "Nirgranth" (or Nirgantha) has been consistently used by the Jain tradition throughout its history for its revered ascetics.
Historical evidence suggests that the term "Nirgranth" was not prevalent or established for the guru class of any other tradition besides the Jain lineage. This is why Jain scriptures are called "Nirgranth Pravachan" (Nirgranth Discourse), whereas other traditions' scriptures are not.

4. Relationship with Buddhism:

The Buddhist Pitaka literature has a direct and significant relationship with the Nirgranth tradition, more so than Vedic or Puranic literature. This is due to:
- Both Jainism and Buddhism are Shraman traditions, fostering a fraternal relationship.
- Gautama Buddha and Mahavira (the last proponent of the Nirgranth tradition) were contemporaries. They lived in the same era and geographically similar regions, even sharing the same cities, palaces, and sometimes families (referring to their followers' interactions).
- Followers of both traditions interacted, discussed teachings, and many converted from one to the other, indicating close social ties, similar to family members holding different beliefs.
- The Buddhist Pitaka contains descriptions of the Nirgranth tradition, even if they are incidental or critical.

5. Comparison of Buddha and Mahavira:

While both were proponents of the Shraman tradition, there are key differences:
- Buddha's path: Buddha, after his Great Renunciation, progressively accepted and rejected various ascetic and yogic traditions during his six years of spiritual seeking before establishing his own path. He did not claim his teachings were merely ancient but that they were the fruit of his own discovery.
- Mahavira's path: Mahavira accepted the religious path inherited from his lineage (Kula Parampara) and then refined it according to his understanding and strength. His path was about the research and purification of the ancestral tradition, not the establishment of a new religion after abandoning the old. He often cited the teachings of Parshvanatha to win over his followers.
- Integration of views: Buddha criticized other contemporary and pre-existing views, highlighting his own unique perspective without integrating them. Mahavira, however, integrated his reforms with the existing tradition of Parshvanatha's followers, indicating a spirit of reconciliation.

6. Chronological Differences and Influence:

Lifespans: Buddha attained Nirvana at 80, while Mahavira at 72. It is generally accepted that Buddha passed away earlier, meaning he was older than Mahavira.
Timeline of teachings: Buddha had already begun establishing his path before Mahavira started independent religious preaching. Buddha focused on gathering new followers, while Mahavira also aimed to retain the old followers of Parshvanatha.
Approach to other traditions: Buddha had to critically examine and refute other paths to strengthen his Sangha. Mahavira, due to his character and influence, could win over Parshvanatha's existing followers, making the recruitment of new followers less critical for him compared to Buddha. This is why Buddha's teachings are filled with criticism of others, while Mahavira's focus was more on integrating and refining.

7. Influence of the Nirgranth Tradition on Buddha:

Before starting his path, Buddha abandoned several traditions, including the Nirgranth sect.
Based on a comparison of Buddha's life descriptions and Jain Agamic practices, it's clear that Buddha spent a significant period (even if short) in the Nirgranth tradition, specifically following the practices of Parshvanatha, as Mahavira had not yet begun his mission in that region.
This is why Buddha's criticism of the Nirgranth tradition, particularly their severe asceticism (Tapas), is strong. He critiques them using their own terminology.
Buddha and Mahavira's preaching periods overlapped, and they even moved in similar geographical areas without necessarily meeting. This is why Mahavira is referred to as "Satiputta" (son of the wise) in the Pitaka.

8. The "Chaturyama" (Four Vows) and the Buddhist Pitaka:

Buddhist texts like the Dighanikaya and Samyuttanikaya discuss the Nirgranth Mahavratas (great vows).
The Dighanikaya's Samaggaphala Sutta describes Ajatashatru's conversation with Buddha about his meeting with Mahavira, where Mahavira is quoted as saying that Nirgranths are established in "Chaturmasanvara" (four vows) and are therefore self-controlled.
Similarly, the Samyuttanikaya's Devadattasamyutta mentions a person named Nigantha telling Buddha that Mahavira is compassionate, skilled, and possesses Chaturymas.
These Buddhist references indicate that Buddha's tradition, both during his time and later (until the Pitaka was finalized), understood Mahavira and other Nirgranths as followers of the "Chaturyama". "Yama" refers to great vows, similar to "Yama" in Yoga Shastra.
However, the Jain tradition currently upholds Pancha Mahavratas (five great vows). This leads to a question about the discrepancy between the Buddhist references to "Chaturyama" and the current Jain practice of "Pancha Mahavrata."

9. Resolving the "Chaturyama" vs. "Pancha Mahavrata" Discrepancy:

Jain Agamas provide the answer. They preserve ancient layers of tradition that shed light on the pre-Mahavira (Parshvanatha) era and Mahavira's own time.
Agamas like Bhagavati and Uttaradhyayana describe that many Parshvanatha's followers (Pashchattik Nirgranths), who were followers of four Mahavratas, accepted Mahavira's teachings and adopted the five Mahavratas, thus changing their old tradition. Some, however, continued with the four Mahavratas.
Why Mahavira established the Pancha Mahavratas is a historical question. Jain texts explain why he did it but not exactly when.
The four vows established by Lord Parshvanatha were Ahimsa, Satya, Asteya, and Aparigraha. Over time, laxity crept into the Nirgranth tradition. For instance, some interpreted "Aparigraha" (non-possession) loosely, believing they could possess women without infringing the vow, as long as they didn't "collect" them.
To rectify this laxity, Lord Mahavira separated Brahmacharya (celibacy) from Aparigraha and attempted to purify the fourth vow. While the exact timing is unclear, Mahavira emphasized Brahmacharya as a distinct vow, leading the entire subsequent Nirgranth tradition to uphold the Pancha Mahavratas. The few Pashchattik Nirgranths who remained separate from Mahavira's system eventually disappeared.
If the Buddhist Pitaka and Jain Agamas had not preserved references to the four Mahavratas, it would be difficult to know that the Pashchattik tradition once followed them.

10. Conclusions from the Discussion:

Before Mahavira, at least from the time of Parshvanatha, the Nirgranth tradition followed four Mahavratas. Lord Mahavira eventually modified this into five Mahavratas, which is the universally accepted form in all Jain sects today. The ancient tradition of four Mahavratas is preserved only in texts.
Buddha and his contemporaries/successors understood the Nirgranth tradition as strictly following four Mahavratas and were unaware of Mahavira's internal reforms regarding the Pancha Mahavratas. They perpetuated what Buddha had stated and what was commonly known.

11. Comparison of Buddhist and Nirgranth Vows:

Buddha outlined five basic moral precepts (Shila) for his Sangha. While the number matches the Nirgranth vows, there's a difference:
- In the Nirgranth tradition, the fifth vow is Aparigraha.
- In the Buddhist tradition, the fifth precept is abstaining from intoxicants (Madya, etc.).

12. Ambiguity of "Chaturyama" in Buddhist Texts:

The meaning of "Chaturyama" in the original Pitakas and their commentaries is unclear or ambiguous.
It's surprising that Buddhist texts, concerning a neighboring, contemporary, and well-known tradition like the Nirgranth's four vows, would be so ignorant or unclear.
However, this ambiguity is resolved when considering sectarian biases. No sect has given full justice to another. It's possible that Buddha and his early disciples knew the true meaning of Chaturvyama, and it was so well-known that no explanation was deemed necessary.
As the Pitakas were compiled, the need to clarify the meaning arose. Some Buddhist monks might have invented an interpretation based on imagination, which then became established without questioning its validity within the Nirgranth tradition. This is a common misinterpretation observed in Buddhist accounts concerning other traditions.
The true nature of any sect's beliefs can only be understood through its own scriptures and tradition.

In essence, the book argues for the ancient origins of the Nirgranth (Jain) tradition, demonstrating its distinctiveness from Vedic traditions and its significant historical relationship with Buddhism, while also clarifying the evolution of its core vows and the reasons behind perceived discrepancies in external accounts.