Nirnay Prabhakar Ek Parichay - Book Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Nirnay Prabhakar: Ek Parichay," authored by Vinaysagar:

The article "Nirnay Prabhakar: Ek Parichay" by Vinaysagar introduces a significant Jain text named "Nirnay Prabhakar," which documents a dispute and its resolution between two prominent Jain scholars.

Initial Misconceptions and the Nature of the Text:

The author, Vinaysagar, initially assumed "Nirnay Prabhakar" might be a theoretical treatise. However, upon learning the authors were Shri Balachandracharya and Shri Rddhisagar Upadhyay, he wondered if it related to the Mendovara branch of the Khartargachha. He then realized this was unlikely as Balachandracharya supported the Mendovara branch, while Rddhisagar was associated with the Bikaner lineage, suggesting they represented opposing views. This led him to believe the text might be a record of a dispute between Shri Jhaverasagarji and Shri Vijayarajendrasuri.

The Need for Context: The Arbitrators:

The author highlights the unusual choice of arbitrators from the Khartargachha for a dispute that might have involved scholars from other gacchs (sects/traditions) like the Tapagachha. He emphasizes that both Balachandracharya and Rddhisagar, despite their lineage affiliations, were learned scholars who prioritized neutrality, harmony, and coordination over sectarian dogma. Their decisions were based on scriptural principles. Therefore, a brief introduction to these arbitrators is deemed essential.

Introduction to the Arbitrators:

Shri Balachandracharya: Belonged to the Mendovara branch of the Khartargachha. He was a disciple of Upadhyay Rupachandragani, who was a disciple of Upadhyay Rajsagargani, who was a disciple of Acharya Kushalachandrasuri. Born in 1892, he received initiation in 1902 in Kashi from Shri Jinmahendrasuri and was awarded the title "Dingmandalacharya" by Shri Jinmuktissuri. He was a master of Agama literature and grammar and was a devotee of Raja Shivaprasad Sitare-Hind of Kashi. He passed away after a three-day fast in 1962.
Shri Rddhisagar Upadhyay: He was a prominent disciple of Dharmanandji, who was a disciple of Mahopadhyaya Kshamakalanjiji. While specific historical details are scarce, he was a highly learned scholar, known for his miraculous powers and mantra-based abilities, including alleged aerial locomotion. He is credited with opposing the desecration of the sacred Mount Abu by the British and successfully advocating for the protection of the pilgrimage site by establishing 11 government regulations. He passed away in 1952. He was a renowned scholar of Jain scriptures and traditions, and his lineage, starting with his disciple Gananayak Sukhsagar, remains active in serving the faith.

Introduction to the Parties in Dispute:

Plaintiff (Vadi) - Vijayarajendrasuri: Born in 1882 in Bharatpur, his parents were Kesardevi and Rishabhdas Parakh, and his birth name was Ratnaraj. He was initiated as a monk by Hemvijayji in 1904. He studied under Shri Pujya Dharanendrasuri and became his assistant. In 1924, he attained the status of Acharya and was named Vijayarajendrasuri, also initiating a "Krioddhar" (religious reform/renewal) that same year. He passed away in 1963 and is remembered as an exemplary Acharya devoted to righteous conduct. His significant works include the "Abhidhanrajendrakosh," which serves as a guide for researchers. His tradition, though within the Tapagachha, is known as the Saudharma Brihad Tapagachhiya tradition.
Defendant (Prativadi) - Shri Jhaverasagarji: He was a disciple of Gautam Sagarji, who was in the lineage of Shri Mayasagarji of the Tapagachha. (His disciple was Shri Anandsagar Suri, also known as Sagargi). More information about him might be available elsewhere.

The Five Points of Dispute:

The article identifies five specific points of contention between Vijayarajendrasuri and Jhaverasagarji:

Divine Worship (Dravya Puja):
- Plaintiff (Vijayarajendrasuri): Argued that the fruit of performing material worship (with water, sandalwood, flowers, etc.) of God is minor merit and significant shedding of karma (nirjara).
- Defendant (Jhaverasagarji): Contended that the fruit of material worship of God is auspicious, resultant, and leads to significant karma shedding.
Rituals in Samayika:
- Plaintiff: Stated that the fourth "thui" (a section of prayers) and important texts like "Vaiyavachagaranam" should not be recited between Pratrikraman and Devvandan. Also, in the Samayika Vandittua, the phrase "Sammadiththideva ditu samahim cha bohim cha" should not include the word "Dev" (god), as seeking the aid of gods from the four realms during Samayika is not appropriate.
- Defendant: Maintained that the fourth "thui" and key texts like "Vaiyavachagaranam" should be recited.
Dating of Shri Haribhadrasuri:
- Plaintiff: Dated Shri Haribhadrasuri, the author of "Lalitvistara," to the year 962.
- Defendant: Dated him to the year 585.
Dyeing of Monks' Clothes:
- Plaintiff: Considered the dyeing of a monk's clothes (washing and coloring) to be an impropriety.
- Defendant: Stated that this is not an impropriety.
Salutations to Those on the Periphery:
- Plaintiff: Argued that those on the periphery (or associated) should not be saluted at all.
- Defendant: Believed that even those with knowledge and faith but flawed conduct should be saluted based on their positive qualities.

The Decision and Its Basis:

The arbitrators, Balachandracharya and Rddhisagar, made their decision by referencing the Panchangi (which includes Mula Niyukti, Churni, Bhashya, and Tikas) and other Agama literature. They relied solely on scriptural evidence and did not cite any other sources, occasionally employing logical reasoning. The article lists the various texts cited by the arbitrators in alphabetical order.

The Outcome:

The decision of the arbitrators supported the views of Shri Jhaverasagarji and refuted the arguments of Shri Vijayarajendrasuri.

Aftermath and the Text's Significance:

The article notes that, according to elders, Shri Vijayarajendrasuri initially attempted to accept the decision and change his stance. However, prominent merchants from Malwa and Godwad requested him not to, stating they had faced opposition from their communities by supporting his original views. Hearing this, he remained firm in his own beliefs.

The article provides physical details of the manuscript, including its size and line count. It also includes the inscription detailing the copying of the manuscript by Javerchand in 1939. The author concludes that the text, rich with citations and written in ancient Hindi with some Rajasthani influences, is valuable for reading and contemplation and remains relevant for publication even today.