Parvatithi Charcha Sangrah - Book Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Parvatithi Charcha Sangrah" by Kalyanvijay Gani, focusing on the first chapter, "Parvatithi no Itihas" (The History of Festival Dates):

Book Title: Parvatithi Charcha Sangrah (Collection of Discussions on Festival Dates) Author: Muni raj Shri Kalyanvijayji Maharaj Publisher: Shri K. V. Shastra Sangrah Samiti, Jalor Published: Veer Samvat 2463 / Vikram Samvat 1993 / 1937 CE

Overall Purpose and Context:

This book aims to delve into the historical and scriptural basis of various Jain festival dates, particularly those related to Paryushana, which have been a subject of significant debate within the Jain community. The author expresses disappointment with the biased nature of contemporary Jain newspapers, which he believes have contributed to the necessity of publishing this discussion in book form to present a balanced and truthful account. The book is structured into three chapters, but only the first is included in this excerpt, with the others intended for future publication.

Summary of Chapter 1: Parvatithi no Itihas (The History of Festival Dates)

This chapter traces the historical evolution and scriptural understanding of the term "Parva" (festival) and its associated dates within Jainism.

1. Origin of "Parva" (Festivals):

The word "Parva" originally meant a section between two joints or divisions, applied to parts of bamboo, fingers, and sections of texts.
By extension, the two halves of a month (pakshas) were called "Parva," and specifically the full moon (Purnima) and new moon (Amavasya) were designated "Parvatithi" (festival dates).
The term was also applied to the eighth day of the fortnight (Ashtami) and the last days of a paksha (5th, 10th, 15th) due to their alignment with Nanda, Bhadra, etc.
Early Jain scriptures (like Nishith Churni, Kalp Churni) indicate that the observance of Paryushana, a period of fasting and religious austerity, was initially held on these "Parvatithis."
The concept extended to the idea of "sandhi" (junctions) in life, such as the end of one life and the beginning of another, prompting the practice of increased religious devotion during these "Parva" periods.
Over time, the term "Parva" came to signify specific dates and the festivals themselves, a meaning that persists to this day.

2. Knowledge of Festivals:

The knowledge of festivals is intrinsically linked to the knowledge of Tithis (lunar days), which in turn relies on Jyotish (astronomy).
Jainism, like other religions, values Jyotish, as seen in texts like Surya Prajnapti and Chandra Prajnapti.
Ancient Jyotish was simpler, with a year (Samvatsara) consisting of five cycles, often beginning in Shravana Vad (or different months in secular calendars).
These ancient calculations involved predictable increases and decreases in days (Ahoratra) between lunar and solar years.
However, with the advent of "Navya Jyotish" (New Astronomy) around the 3rd century CE, the ancient methods became largely obsolete, replaced by a system that continues to be refined.

3. Changes in Observance of Festivals:

Despite the shift in astronomical calculation methods, no significant disputes regarding festival dates are evident in the Jain community until the 11th century CE.
The change in Paryushana's date from the full moon to the Chaturdashi is attributed to Acharya Kalakacharya in Pratishthan. This shift was adopted by the entire Shraman Sangha.
There's debate about the exact timing and reasons for this shift: some suggest it was to reconcile the timing with other "Chaumasi" festivals, while others believe it first occurred with Acharya Swatisuri, supported by a Prakirnaka Gatha indicating Swatisuri's introduction of Chaumasi on Chaturdashi 1250 years after Mahavira's Nirvana.
While there's debate about the "Chaumasi" festival's date change, it's certain that the "Samvatsari" (annual observance) began on Chaturthi after the Chaumasi was established on Chaturdashi.

4. Disagreements on Tithi and Month from the 12th Century:

Besides the change in Chaturthi and Chaturdashi, no other major changes in festival dates occurred until the 12th century CE.
In 1159 CE, Acharya Chandraprabhasuri established the "Pashik" in Purnima, leading to the formation of various Gachhas (sects) like Sadhu, Pornimaya, Anchal, Kharatar, and Agamic.
Each Gachha adopted slightly different interpretations of "Audayik Tithi" (date based on sunrise). While all agreed on Audayik Tithi, the interpretation of its meaning differed.
The Sanatan tradition understood Audayik Tithi as "sunrise Tithi," but new reformist Gachhas interpreted it as "current Tithi" or "prevailing Tithi." This redefinition significantly altered the principle of Audayik Tithi.
Festivals like Pashik and Chaturmasik were previously observed based on sunrise Tithis, but the new interpretation led to the insistence that the festival-related Tithis must be present at the time of the actual ritual.
This led to many new Gachhas diverging from the ancient tradition. The Kharatar Gachha, for example, maintained the observance of Samvatsari on Chaturthi and Chaumasi on Chaturdashi, but also adopted the new interpretation of Audayik Tithi.
Disagreements also arose regarding the increase in months ("Masavrudhi"). While ancient Jyotish had no issues with month increments (only two months, Paush and Ashadh, were added), the adoption of new Jyotish and the disappearance of ancient almanacs led to date-related disputes. For instance, the Tapagachha tradition observes Paryushana during the increase of Shravana in Bhadrapada and the increase of Bhadrapada in another Bhadrapada, while Kharatar and other traditions observe it during the increase of Shravana in another Shravana and Bhadrapada in the first Bhadrapada.

5. Ancient Tapagachha Beliefs on Tithi:

Tapagachha's beliefs were rooted in the Sanatan (ancient) tradition.
The emphasis on "Tapa" (asceticism) in Jainism, beginning at sunrise, led the original tradition to consider sunrise Tithis as primary. This belief was adopted by Tapagachha.
Newer Gachhas misleadingly defined "Audayik Tithi" as "the Tithi prevailing at the time of the ritual."
To counter this, followers of the Sanatan tradition provided clear explanations, defining Audayik Tithi as the Tithi in which the sun rises, citing verses from scriptures.
These verses clearly state that the Tithi in which the sun rises is the valid one, and performing rituals based on other Tithis leads to transgressions.
These verses, quoted in works from the 15th and mid-16th centuries CE, confirm the ancient Tapagachha belief.

6. Tapagachha Beliefs on Tithi from the 17th Century:

No changes in Tapagachha's Tithi beliefs are evident up to the 17th century CE.
The questions and answers from Acharya Vijayahirisuriji and Acharya Vijayasen Suriji shed light on the Tithi beliefs of that era.
Based on Shri Hiraprashna Granth:
- Tapagachha tradition observed the preceding Tithi during an increase of Purnima or Amavasya. However, Acharya Hirsuriji sometimes observed the subsequent Tithi for special reasons. This led to debates, with his disciples citing him to support either tradition.
- A question to Hirsuriji confirmed that Purnima and Amavasya increases should still be observed based on the subsequent (Audayik) Tithi.
- The text implies Hirsuriji's ancient Tithi beliefs and his occasional flexibility due to specific reasons.
- Regarding fasting on Panchami (5th Tithi), a question to Hirsuriji suggested observing it on Panchami only if one lacked the strength to observe the Paryushana fast on Chaturthi. This indicates Chaturthi's precedence over Panchami for Paryushana.
- A question from a Sangh about Panchami fasting further reinforced the idea that observing Paryushana on Chaturthi was preferred, even if Panchami was the designated Tithi.

7. Tithi-related Beliefs from the 19th Century:

While the 18th century shows no Tithi discussions, the 19th century saw the emergence of disagreements, primarily due to the conflicts between the Devsuri and Anand Suri Gachhas, and to some extent, the ignorance of contemporary Gachhadhipatis (leaders).
Anand Suri Gachha followers believed in observing the next Tithi during an increase of Purnima, citing a line from the Hiraprashna text.
Their opponents, largely from the Dev Suri Gachha, insisted on observing the preceding Tithi during Purnima increases.
A temporary compromise was reached in Surat in 1869 CE, stipulating that Tithis lasting 36 palas (a measure of time) would be observed. For three Chaumasi Purnimas with a decrease, the Tithi would be observed on the 12th and 13th. For other Purnima decreases, the new moon would be observed. The document, however, lacked broader endorsement.
The author expresses doubt about the authenticity of this compromise, noting the absence of other signatures and the inability to trace the referenced verse.
Against the Surat Compromise (Advocating for Thirteen-day Increase): A manuscript discusses the debate, refuting the Anand Suri Gachha's view of increasing the Tithi on Pratipada (first day of the lunar month) during Purnima increases. It argues that almanacs show Purnima aligning with Chaturdashi, not Pratipada. It also criticizes the practice of increasing Trayodashi (13th day) without clear scriptural basis.
Debate on Trayodashi Decrease: Another manuscript, "Tithi Ghataghat Vichar," argues against decreasing Trayodashi during Purnima decreases, stating that in case of Purnima decrease, the fast should be performed on Trayodashi or Chaturdashi, and in case of forgetting Trayodashi, even on Pratipada. It also strongly refutes the idea of observing Chaturdashi on Purnima when Chaturdashi is absent, calling it "Mrushavadan" (false speech).
The author notes that in the 19th century, differing interpretations of Tithi increases and decreases led to significant disputes within the Tapagachha. The lack of named authors in these debate manuscripts raises questions about their authenticity.

8. Tithi-related Beliefs from the 20th Century:

The 20th century witnessed the crumbling of the authority of Gachhadhipatis.
"Head-bill Battles" of 1929 CE:
- In 1928 CE, Bhadrava Shukla 1 was a dual Tithi. Acharya Vijayadharanendrasuriji of the Devsuri branch of Tapagachha considered the implications for observing the "Chhath" (sixth day fast) during Paryushana. Citing precedents from Acharya Vijayajinendrasuriji, he instructed his followers to observe the Tithi on Shravana Vad 13 (instead of Bhadrava Shukla 1).
- This decision caused confusion, with some observing the dual Tithi as it appeared in almanacs and others following the Acharya's instruction.
- In 1929 CE, with another dual Tithi on Bhadrava Shukla 1, Acharya Dharanendrasuriji reiterated his instruction.
- This led to a backlash, with counter-headbills appearing. Acharya Shantisagar Suriji of the Sagar Gachha issued a significant headbill refuting Dharanendrasuriji's arguments. Shantisagar Suriji emphasized observing the dual Tithi as it appeared in almanacs and criticized Dharanendrasuriji's interpretation of scriptures, particularly the Hiraprashna text. He also pointed out inconsistencies in the historical accounts cited by Dharanendrasuriji.
- The author notes that Shantisagar Suriji's arguments were well-reasoned and based on scriptural evidence.
Discussion of 1935 CE: In 1935 CE, Acharya Dharanendrasuriji again followed the practice of observing Shravana Vad 13 instead of the dual Bhadrava Shukla 1. Muni Javersagarji publicly opposed this, advocating for observing the Tithi as it appeared in almanacs and not merging Tithis unnecessarily. His public statements, later published as a headbill, argued for the correctness of observing the dual Tithi as it appeared and criticized the merging of Tithis without scriptural basis.
Abandoning Old Practices: The author stresses that the practices initiated by less enlightened Gachhadhipatis, such as merging Tithis or changing festival dates without scriptural backing, should be abandoned in the 20th century with growing awareness.
Beginning of Samvatsari Disputes from 1952 CE: The current disputes over Samvatsari dates didn't start last year, as some believe, but in 1952 CE.
- In 1952 CE, Bhadrava Shukla 5 had a decrease. Scholar Anopchandbhai approached Acharya Atmaramji (Vijayavallabh Suriji) regarding the dilemma. Atmaramji advised observing the decrease on Panchami itself, which seemed reasonable as Chaturthi was already observing the Paryushana ritual.
- Following Atmaramji's demise, Anopchandbhai sought further consultation, and the consensus supported observing the decrease on Panchami. This led to Samvatsari being observed on Chaturthi in many places.
- However, Acharya Anand Sagarji (now Sagaranand Suriji), who was in Patlad during his monsoon stay, observed Samvatsari one day earlier (on the 3rd Tithi), but received no support from other regions.
- Similar situations occurred in 1961 and 1989, where the Tapagachha generally observed the decrease on Panchami, but Sagaranand Suriji and his disciples often diverged, observing it on the 3rd Tithi.
- In 1988 CE, when the Jodhpur almanac showed a decrease in Bhadrava Shukla 5, the entire Tapagachha observed Samvatsari on Chaturthi. However, Sagaranand Suriji's group again diverged, observing it on the 3rd Tithi. This led to opposition from Acharya Vijaynitin Suriji and others.
Why Not Consider Panchami a Decrease but a Growth? The author explains that while almanacs show a decrease in Panchami in the last 40 years, leading to observing Samvatsari on Chaturthi, the tradition of considering it a "growth" instead of a decrease is recent and lacks historical basis.
Samvatsari Calculation: The book clarifies that Samvatsari should be observed after one month and twenty nights from the beginning of Chaturmas. This translates to approximately 50 days, calculated based on the number of pakshas (fortnights) rather than the exact number of days. The text emphasizes that the calculated 50 days lead to observing Samvatsari on the 4th Tithi (Wednesday in the current year's example), not the 5th (Thursday).

10. Paryushana-Prashnottara Shatak (One Hundred Questions and Answers on Paryushana): This section addresses common questions and debates surrounding Paryushana, including:

Can one switch from observing Samvatsari on Sunday/Panchami last year to Chaturthi/Wednesday this year? Yes, one can switch from an earlier observance to a later one if justified, but not vice-versa. The example of Acharya Kalakacharya is used.
Can one change their mind about observing Samvatsari on Thursday if Wednesday seems more appropriate? Yes, the decision regarding "Masadhar" (monthly fast observance) can be flexible for personal tapasya, but the actual Samvatsari Pratikraman should adhere to the established date (Chaturthi/Wednesday in this case), as per the tradition since Acharya Kalakacharya.
Meaning of "Parva" and "Parvatithi": "Parva" means both a division of time and a festival. "Parvatithi" is the date associated with these festivals.
Are all 12 festival Tithis considered "Kala Vibhaga" (time divisions)? Panchami, Ashtami, Dashami, Chaturdashi, Purnima, and Amavasya are time divisions. Other Tithis are considered festival Tithis due to being associated with auspicious events like Kalyanakas.
What type of festival is Samvatsari? When observed on Panchami, it was considered a time-based festival. After its shift to Chaturthi, it became more of a festival of "Tapa" (asceticism) or celebration.
Is Chaturthi a festival Tithi for those who prioritize it over Panchami during its increase? The author considers it a mistake to not consider Chaturthi, an annual festival Tithi, as a festival.
When did Samvatsari move from Panchami to Chaturthi? It shifted to Chaturthi after Acharya Kalakacharya made the change at the request of King Satavahana.
Historical inaccuracies in verses regarding Samvatsari's timing: The book debunks verses that claim Samvatsari shifted to Chaturthi 993 years after Mahavira, pointing out inconsistencies in historical timelines and attributing the change to a different Acharya Kalakacharya.
Reasons for the shift from Panchami to Chaturthi: The shift was due to King Satavahana's inability to participate in Paryushana on Panchami due to the Indra Mahotsava festival, leading to the observance on Chaturthi.
Rejection of a "Shani Nivaran" (averting misfortune) theory: The author refutes the idea that the shift to Chaturthi was for averting misfortune, citing Nishith Sutra which clearly attributes it to the Indra Mahotsava.
Can the same logic apply if Panchami occurs twice in a year? If Panchami is duplicated, the observance should be on the correct Tithi, not arbitrarily shifted.
Is it correct to say Panchami should be adjacent to Chaturthi? Chaturthi is naturally adjacent to Panchami. However, the practice of considering the Tithi adjacent to the "Ardha-Ratri" (mid-night) is the relevant factor, not just adjacency.
If two Panchamis occur, how do those observing Chaturthi determine which is the "correct" one? They will consider the first Panchami as the primary one, as the Tithi of Panchami technically extends to the sunrise of the next day. However, the author emphasizes that if Chaturthi is the established date for Samvatsari, it should be observed on Chaturthi.
Accusation against Upadhyay Dharmasagarji: The author addresses an accusation that Dharmasagarji called Bhadrava Shukla Panchami "dead." He confirms this, citing Dharmasagarji's verses comparing Panchami to a "dead mother" and Chaturthi to a "wish-fulfilling creeper." He then expresses surprise that Dharmasagarji's followers now advocate observing Samvatsari on Panchami.
Pandit Virvijayji's exclusion of Panchami: The author confirms that Pandit Virvijayji did not consider Bhadrava Shukla Panchami a festival, quoting his verses.
The practice of observing two Trayodashis for two Purnimas: The author states this practice is not authentic and originated from less knowledgeable Gachhadhipatis in recent times.
Reasons for following incorrect traditions: The author explains that during the time these traditions emerged, there were few learned monks, and the Gachhadhipatis held significant power, forcing even learned monks to comply with their directives.
Critique of Sagaranand Suriji's interpretations: The author challenges Sagaranand Suriji's interpretation of scriptures, particularly the verses related to Tithi increases and decreases, highlighting contradictions in his own writings.
The role of almanacs: The text discusses the shift from handwritten Jain almanacs to printed ones, with the "Chandu Shundoo" almanac gaining prominence and influencing festival date calculations. The author questions the reliability of printed almanacs without proper verification and criticizes the practice of changing festival dates based on them, especially when they deviate from established traditions.
Dispute over the timing of Samvatsari in 1992-1993: The author analyzes the conflicting claims regarding whether Bhadrava Shukla 5 or 4 was the correct date for Samvatsari in 1992-1993, highlighting the influence of different almanacs and the recent emergence of practices like observing the Tithi on Thursday based on a duplicated Panchami.
The significance of the 50-day calculation: The text reiterates that the 50-day calculation for Samvatsari is based on the number of pakshas, not exact days, and that adhering to Chaturthi as the Samvatsari date is historically consistent with Acharya Kalakacharya's tradition.
The author's final argument for observing Samvatsari on Chaturthi (Wednesday in the current context): Based on scriptural interpretation, historical precedent, and the established tradition since Acharya Kalakacharya, the author concludes that Samvatsari should be observed on Chaturthi (Wednesday in the example), not Panchami (Thursday). He argues that shifting to Panchami due to its duplication is a deviation from established practice and potentially leads to spiritual transgressions.

Conclusion of the First Chapter:

The first chapter concludes by emphasizing the long-standing tradition of fixed festival dates in Jainism, particularly the observance of Samvatsari on Chaturthi, as established by Acharya Kalakacharya. It criticizes recent attempts to alter these dates based on disputed interpretations or flawed almanacs and urges the community to follow the scripturally supported and historically consistent practice. The author expresses hope that readers will understand the truth and follow the correct path.