Pariharya Mimansa

Here's a comprehensive summary in English of the provided Jain text, "Pariharya Mimansa" by Anandsagarsuri, based on the pages you've shared:

Overall Purpose:

"Pariharya Mimansa" (परीहार्यमीमांसा) appears to be a critical treatise by Muni Nemivijay and Muni Anandsagar, aimed at refuting a particular interpretation of Jain scriptures that permits the consumption of meat and other prohibited items. The authors are specifically responding to a letter from a lay follower (Shrimati Khemji Heerji of Mumbai) who presented an argument for the permissibility of meat consumption by ancient Jain ascetics (Jinakalpika munis), citing certain interpretations of the Acharya Anga Sutra.

Key Arguments and Refutations:

The core of the text is a rigorous examination and rebuttal of the claim that ancient Jain ascetics were permitted to eat meat. The authors meticulously analyze specific scriptural passages and linguistic interpretations to demonstrate the prohibition of meat consumption in Jainism.

Here are the main points of contention and the authors' refutations:

• The "Matsya" (Fish) Word Interpretation:

  • The letter writer argued that the word "matsya" (fish) in the Acharya Anga Sutra might not strictly refer to fish but could have other meanings, supported by dictionary references.
  • The authors strongly refute this, stating that according to established Jain lexicons (like Hemachandra's Kosh) and the principles of interpreting plant-based life forms in Jain philosophy, the word "matsya" has a clear meaning that cannot be circumvented. They argue that attempting to find alternative meanings based on dictionary entries, without considering the context and established scriptural interpretation, is a misrepresentation.
  • They also address the word "māṃsa" (meat) in scriptural contexts, suggesting that when used, it refers to external use (like for remedies) and not for consumption, drawing parallels with how "bhuñj" (to eat) is used in other sutras.

• Jinakalpika Ascetics and Meat Consumption:

  • The letter writer suggested that while current Jain ascetic practices are strict, ancient Jinakalpika ascetics might have followed a different code that included meat consumption.
  • The authors counter this by emphasizing that the principles of strict adherence to the path of liberation (Kevalotsarga mārga) were paramount for Jinakalpika ascetics. They argue that describing their practices as involving meat consumption is entirely inappropriate and contradicts the essence of their rigorous lifestyle.
  • They cite passages indicating that Jinakalpika ascetics were not permitted to be women, suggesting a high level of restriction that would preclude meat.

• Scriptural Evidence Against Meat Consumption:

  • Dashavaikalika Sutra: The authors highlight the Dashavaikalika Sutra (specifically the second Chulika, seventh Gatha) which explicitly prohibits the consumption of alcohol (madyā) and meat (māṃsā) by monks. They interpret the passage "Amadyamāṃsāsi" (not consuming alcohol and meat) as a clear and absolute prohibition. They question the logic behind not explicitly mentioning the prohibition of meat consumption with the word "abhikṣaṇaṃ" (repeatedly) if it were permissible, implying its absolute forbiddenness.
  • Sutrakr̥tanga Sutra: They refer to the second Shruta Skandha, second Adhyayana of the Sutrakr̥tanga Sutra, which discusses ascetic conduct and lists "forty-two defect-free foods." The passage "Amadyamāṃsāsiṇo" is cited as clear evidence of the prohibition of alcohol and meat. They express concern for those who, despite these clear prohibitions, claim ancient monks ate meat, attributing it to forgetfulness or misinterpretation of their own published explanations.
  • Bhagavati Sutra (Vivaha Prajnapti): They quote a passage from the Bhagavati Sutra (eighth Shataka, ninth Uddeshaka) where Lord Mahavira, in response to Gautam Gandhar's question about the cause of rebirth in hell, clearly states that meat consumption (kuṇimāhāra) is a cause for such karma, alongside great violence and attachment.
  • Sthananga Sutra: The Sthananga Sutra (fourth Adhyayana, Chaturthasthanaka) is cited as describing meat eating (kuṇimāhāra) as a cause for suffering in hell.
  • Pravachana Saroddhara: This text is quoted to list twenty-two types of forbidden foods, including honey, alcohol, and meat, emphasizing their renunciation.
  • Uttaradhyayana Sutra: The authors extensively quote verses from the Uttaradhyayana Sutra (Chapters 5 and 7) that depict the dire consequences of consuming alcohol and meat, leading to suffering in hell and accumulation of negative karma. They describe the torment in hell for meat-eaters, including being fed burning coals and boiling substances.
  • Sutrakr̥tanga Sutra (Second Shruta Skandha, Sixth Adhyayana): The commentary on the 39th Gatha of this section is highlighted. It strongly condemns meat consumption, stating it is rooted in violence, impure, a cause for dreadful meditation, and leads to hell. It explains the etymology of "māṃsa" as referring to the meat of that which will be eaten by another, emphasizing the pain and suffering involved. The commentary also asserts that those who understand the consequences of meat consumption (kusala) do not indulge in the desire for it.
  • Perpetrator and Meat: They also bring up a concept from the Sutrakr̥tanga Sutra (First Adhyayana, Second Uddeshaka) that eating meat, even if killed by another, leads to karma bondage through tacit approval. They list the eight types of sinners related to meat: the killer, the approver, the cutter, the buyer/seller, the preparer, the consumer, and the one who causes it.
  • Sthananga Sutra (Tenth Adhyayana, Dashasthanaka): This text is cited as stating that specific religious practices should not be performed in places where meat or similar substances are present.

• Linguistic and Grammatical Arguments:

  • The authors delve into grammatical rules from Siddha Hemachandra's grammar to refute the argument that the suffix "-nin" in "māṃsabhōjī" (meat-eater) implies a habitual action rather than a permanent characteristic. They explain that the suffix "-nin" is typically used with words denoting species, and since "māṃsa" does not denote a species, the interpretation is flawed. They provide examples like "brāhmaṇānamantrayitā" (one who invites Brahmins) to illustrate correct usage.
  • They argue that the interpretation of "Amadyamāṃsāsi" as "not consuming alcohol and meat" by authoritative commentators like Bhagavad Haribhadra Suri and Dipakara supports their stance.

• Critique of the "Shramanoppasak" (Lay Follower):

  • The text addresses a specific lay follower (identified as an "Anglabālāyamānaḥ śramaṇopāsaka") who is criticized for misinterpreting scripture and presenting flawed arguments in Gujarati.
  • The authors dismiss the idea that ancient kings who gave up meat were associated with specific merchant castes, and they question the logic of this statement without the prohibition of meat consumption.
  • They also allude to a past incident involving Kumārapāla, a ruler who was advised by Jain monks and later renounced meat, suggesting that the lay follower has forgotten such historical precedents.

Conclusion:

The "Pariharya Mimansa" strongly advocates for the absolute prohibition of meat consumption within Jainism, based on a comprehensive analysis of numerous scriptural texts and grammatical principles. The authors aim to dispel any notion that meat eating was ever permissible for Jain ascetics, highlighting its inherent violence and severe karmic consequences. They urge readers to adhere to the established doctrines and to be wary of misinterpretations that lead to spiritual harm.