Prachin Shwetambar Arvachin Digambar

Here's a comprehensive summary of the Jain text "Prachin Shwetambar Arvachin Digambar" by Vidyavijay, based on the provided pages:

Book Title: Prachin Shwetambar Arvachin Digambar (Ancient Shvetambar, Modern Digambar) Author: Muni Shri Vidyavijayji Publisher: Harshchandra Hirabhai Shah

Overall Purpose: This text is a polemical work by Muni Shri Vidyavijayji, written in Gujarati, arguing forcefully that the Shvetambar sect of Jainism is older and more authentic than the Digambar sect. It serves as a detailed response to a perceived attack or criticism from a Digambar proponent, Mr. Pangale. The author aims to scientifically and historically establish the antiquity and precedence of the Shvetambar tradition.

Key Arguments and Content:

1. Context and Motivation (Pages 3-4):

   • The author explains that this tract is a response to Mr. Pangale's work, which he received late.
   • He acknowledges the possibility of some repetition due to Mr. Pangale's own repetitive arguments, seeking the reader's forgiveness for this.
   • He includes his earlier tract (Tract No. 1) to demonstrate the strength of his arguments and the perceived weakness of Mr. Pangale's counter-arguments.
   • He expresses gratitude to Upadhyay Shri Indravijayji Maharaj for his assistance in writing this tract.

2. Shvetambar Antiquity vs. Digambar Origin (Pages 5-8):

   • The author asserts that the Shvetambar sect is ancient and that this has been confirmed by Western and Indian scholars.
   • He criticizes some Digambar scholars for making accusations against Shvetambaras on well-discussed topics, thereby disturbing peace.
   • He presents the Shvetambar account of the origin of the Digambar sect, attributing it to Muni Shivabhuti (609 years after Mahavir's Nirvana), who broke away from his Acharya over issues of clothing and the use of a broom (rajoharan). Shivabhuti allegedly became nude due to karma and established a new, false doctrine.
   • He contrasts this with the Digambar claim that the Shvetambar sect was founded 136 years after King Vikramaditya's death in Vallabhi by a saint named Jinachandra. The author questions this claim and intends to analyze it using Western scholarly findings and logic.

3. Critique of Digambar Scripture Chronology (Pages 9-11):

   • The author challenges the Digambar assertion that their scriptures were created by two disciples of Dharmsen Muni in 683 years after Mahavir's Nirvana, claiming that eleven Angas were already lost by then.
   • He questions the basis for these scriptures, suggesting they were self-created and not verifiable.
   • He highlights contradictions in Digambar accounts regarding Dharmsen's timeline and his relationship with Pushpadanta and Bhutabali, pointing out discrepancies with other Digambar texts like the "Vikramaprabhandha." He argues that these contradictions prove the Digambar scripture chronology to be fabricated.
   • He states that if the Digambar sect were truly ancient, there should be existing scriptures composed by Ganadharas and other early monks, which he claims are absent. This reinforces his belief that Digambaras created new scriptures to support their sect.

4. Evidence for Shvetambar Antiquity:

   • Scholarly Opinions (Pages 11-16):
     • He cites Professor Jacobi (from "The Sacred Books of the East," Vol. XXII) stating that the entire Jain Siddhanta was compiled after the 4th century BC.
     • He quotes Dr. Bhandarkar who, in response to Mr. Pangale, suggested the Digambar sect is older. The author vehemently refutes this, calling it a baseless claim.
     • He presents the Mathura inscriptions, considered among the most ancient Jain inscriptions, noting that the majority support the Shvetambar sect. The names of Acharyas and their lineages mentioned in these inscriptions align with the Shvetambar "Sthaviravali" (list of elders) in the Kalpasutra.
     • He quotes Mr. G. Bühler from the "Vienna Oriental Journal" (Vol. 4) who states that inscriptions prove the actual existence of twenty subdivisions mentioned in the Shvetambar Kalpasutra's Sthaviravali.
     • He further quotes Mr. Bühler regarding the Kadiya Gan founded by Susthita and Supratibuddha around 250 BC and the Ucchanagari Shakha 60-70 years later, linking this to the Shvetambar tradition.
     • He mentions an inscription depicting the Garbhapahara (conception transference) performed by Hiranyamegheshri, a story accepted by Shvetambaras but not Digambaras, further supporting Shvetambar antiquity.
   • Hindu Scriptures (Pages 19-22):
     • He cites verses from the Shiva Purana (Chapter 21) describing monks with shaved heads, wearing soiled clothes, carrying a pot, and a broom (rajoharan), and wearing a cloth, which he argues clearly depicts Shvetambar monks. He dismisses the idea that this description could apply to Digambaras.
     • He addresses the Digambar attempt to prove their antiquity using a verse from the Mahabharata mentioning a "naked Kshapanaka." The author argues that the same Vyasa who wrote the Shiva Purana would not describe Shvetambaras in one text and Digambaras in another, especially since the Digambar sect, according to his argument, did not exist at that time. He suggests the "naked Kshapanaka" refers to Jinakalpi monks, who also existed during that period and were not Digambaras.
   • "Nirgranth" Terminology (Pages 23-24, 106-108):
     • He clarifies that the term "Nirgranth" does not mean "naked" but rather "free from attachment/possessions" (nir-grantha). He cites a pattavali stating that "Nirgrantha" was a general term for monks and ascetics, not specifically naked ones.
     • He refutes the Digambar interpretation of "Nirgranth" as "naked" by referencing a verse from "Nirvachana" where the Muni states that moorchha (attachment) is the source of possession (parigraha), not the objects themselves. He argues that nakedness alone doesn't imply non-possession. He also points out that even Digambar Acharyas like Shubhandracharya discuss the necessity of carefully handling scriptures and utensils (upakarana) for the protection of conduct (charitra), contradicting the idea that true renunciation means absolute nakedness.
   • Mankhali Gosala (Page 24):
     • He notes that Mankhali Gosala is mentioned in Shvetambar texts like Bhagavati Sutra and in Buddhist Pitaka texts, but not in any Digambar texts. This absence, he argues, proves Digambar scriptures are more recent.
   • Four Vows vs. Five Vows (Pages 25-26):
     • He highlights a crucial difference: Shvetambaras believe Tirthankaras from Ajitanath to Parshvanath followed four great vows (Mahavratas), with aparigraha (non-possession) encompassing brahmacharya (celibacy). Mahavir's followers, like Rishabhdev's, followed five great vows.
     • He cites Dr. Jacobi's commentary on the Pali Nikaya, stating that the Pali "Chatuyama" is equivalent to the Prakrit "Chaturjam," a Jain term for Parshvanath's four vows, distinct from Mahavir's five. This difference, absent in Digambar texts, further supports Shvetambar antiquity.
   • Comparison with Buddhist Texts (Page 26):
     • He mentions that Buddhist texts (like Buddhagosha's commentary on Dhammapada) state that monks (Nirgranths) keep a type of cloth for discipline, which aligns with the Shvetambar practice of wearing clothes (Sachalakatva). Digambaras, who are completely nude, do not share this practice, indicating Shvetambara's connection to older traditions.
   • Digambar Sect's Own Evolution (Pages 45-49):
     • He argues that Digambaras themselves have evolved over time: from complete nudity to wearing a loincloth (lagoti), then adding a peacock feather (morpankhi), and later carrying water pots (kamandalu). He cites Shubhandracharya's description of monks carefully handling scriptures and utensils as evidence of evolving practices, even within the Digambar tradition, contradicting their claims of static, ancient purity in nudity.
   • Critique of Digambar "Nakedness" Argument (Pages 49-50, 92-93):
     • He argues that nakedness (Nagnavastha) is not the highest stage and challenges the idea that it is the ultimate goal. He discusses the "Sthavirakalpa" (older, stricter practice) and "Jinakapa" (newer practice) within Jainism. He argues that Sthavirakalpa, which involves retaining certain practices (like wearing clothes), is superior or at least equally valid to Jinakalpa, which emphasizes a stricter interpretation that he believes Digambaras derive their arguments from, leading to exclusive nakedness. He notes that Kevaljnana (omniscience) was achieved in Sthavirakalpa, not necessarily Jinakalpa, making the latter less ultimate.
     • He refutes the Digambar claim that Tirthankaras, including Mahavir, were naked. He cites scriptures stating Tirthankaras accept a divine garment (devadushya) at initiation, and that Mahavir himself retained it for over a year. He questions why Digambaras imitate only the nakedness and not other aspects of Tirthankara's conduct.
   • Refutation of Digambar Claims on Tirthankara Narratives (Pages 54-63, 94-96):
     • He counters Mr. Pangale's claims about the antiquity of Vaishnavism, showing it to be much older than claimed, and uses this to highlight how Pangale misinterprets or selectively uses evidence.
     • He criticizes Pangale's reliance on folk sayings and isolated verses from various texts without proper context or scholarly backing to prove Digambar antiquity. He dismisses claims based on the word "naked" in unrelated contexts.
     • He debunks the Digambar assertion that the antiquity of their sect is proven by the common folk belief that Jain deities are naked, attributing this belief to the Digambar practice of depicting deities as naked, not to Shvetambar tradition.
   • Critique of Digambar Scholarly Sources (Pages 65-89, 99-100):
     • He points out Mr. Pangale's reliance on an inexperienced student's translation of the Bhadra Bahu Charitra, highlighting errors and misinterpretations.
     • He reiterates his earlier point about the contradictory timelines for Dharmsen Muni in Digambar sources.
     • He criticizes Digambaras for failing to produce any original scriptures from Ganadharas, proving their scriptures are self-created.
     • He refutes Pangale's claim that Shvetambaras adopted their practices from Buddhist texts, asserting the antiquity of Shvetambar scriptures and their independent origin. He argues that similarities in certain concepts or practices do not imply adoption.
     • He addresses the Digambar claim that Bhadra Bahu was their head, presenting evidence that Digambaras are confused about which Bhadra Bahu they refer to, highlighting inconsistencies in their own lineage records. He quotes Dr. A. Guerinot, a scholar of Jain literature, who states that the Bhadra Bahu who migrated south was the "Minor Angin" and not the "Shrutakevali," contradicting Digambar claims.
     • He refutes Pangale's misinterpretation of Jacobi's statements regarding the collection of Angas. He emphasizes that collection does not equal creation and that Shvetambaras acknowledge the collection process while upholding the original antiquity of the Angas.
   • Scholarly Consensus (Page 11-12, 112-114):
     • He strongly emphasizes that modern scholarship generally acknowledges the Shvetambar doctrine as the oldest, citing the agreement among prominent scholars. He quotes from the presidential remarks of Mahamahopadhyaya Pt. Satish Chandra Vidyabhusana, who, after reviewing texts and hearing lectures, concluded that "Setambar doctrine is the oldest."
   • Rejection of Digambar Counter-Arguments (Pages 36-119):
     • The author systematically addresses and dismisses Mr. Pangale's arguments as being based on misinterpretations, distortions of facts, illogical reasoning, and outright fabrications driven by prejudice ("andh prem" - blind love). He accuses Pangale of "chasing shadows" and making up arguments rather than refuting them logically.

5. Conclusion and Appeal (Pages 32, 119-132):

   • The author concludes that Digambaras have failed to provide any valid historical, scriptural, or logical proof for their antiquity. He reiterates that Shvetambaras are ancient, and Digambaras are recent and fabricated.
   • He appeals for unity among all Jain sects, believing that sectarian divisions do not increase the number of followers but rather weaken the spread of the core teachings of Jainism: Ahimsa (non-violence), right faith, right knowledge, and right conduct.
   • He expresses hope for peace and reconciliation, urging Digambaras to abandon their stubbornness and acknowledge the truth.
   • He offers to respond to any further well-reasoned arguments from the Digambar side.

In essence, Vidyavijayji's work is a comprehensive defense of the Shvetambar tradition, using historical evidence, linguistic analysis, scriptural comparison, and logical arguments to dismantle the claims of the Digambar sect and establish the Shvetambaras as the original and ancient lineage of Jainism.