Prachin Shwetambar Arvachin Digambar

This Jain text, titled "Prachin Shwetambar Arvachin Digambar" (Ancient Svetambara or Modern Digambara), authored by Vidyavijay, and published by Harshchandra Hirabhai Shah, is a scholarly discourse engaging in a debate about the antiquity of two major sects within Jainism: the Svetambaras (white-clad) and the Digambaras (sky-clad or naked).

The book is presented as a response to a tract by Mr. Pangale, aiming to refute the arguments made by Digambara proponents who claim their sect is older. The author, Vidyavijay, asserts that the Svetambara sect is indeed the ancient one.

Here's a breakdown of the key arguments and themes presented in the text:

Author's Motivation and Structure:

• The author explains the delay in publishing this tract was due to his traveling during the monsoon season.
• He acknowledges potential repetition due to Mr. Pangale's repetitive arguments in his own tract.
• The author includes his previous article (Tract No. 1) alongside this one for easier comparison and to highlight the perceived weakness of Mr. Pangale's counter-arguments.
• He expresses gratitude to Upadhyayji Shri Indravijayji Maharaj for his assistance in writing this tract.

Central Argument: Svetambara Antiquity:

The core of the text is dedicated to proving the ancientness of the Svetambara tradition and refuting the claims of the Digambara sect. This is achieved through various forms of evidence:

1. Historical and Scriptural Evidence:

   • Origin of the Digambara Sect: The author recounts the Svetambara narrative that the Digambara sect originated 609 years after Mahavir Nirvana, founded by Muni Shivabhuti. The story details a dispute over clothing and the interpretation of ascetic rules, leading to the split.
   • Critique of Digambara Sources: The author challenges the historical accuracy and consistency of Digambara texts regarding the lineage and timeline of their early acharyas like Dharasen, Pushpadanta, and Bhutabali, pointing out contradictions in their attributed timelines and the events described.
   • Inscriptions and Archeology: The text heavily relies on the interpretation of ancient inscriptions, particularly those found at Mathura. The author argues that these inscriptions, believed to be the oldest Jain epigraphs, support the Svetambara tradition by mentioning divisions and acharyas that align with the Svetambara Kalpasutra's Sthaviravali (list of elders). He quotes scholars like G. Buhler to support this.
   • Buddhist Texts: The author cites Buddhist texts, specifically the Pali Nikaya and its commentary, which mention the distinction between the four vows of Parshvanatha (associated with the Svetambaras) and the five vows of Mahavira. This distinction, not found in Digambara texts, is presented as evidence of Svetambara antiquity.
   • Hindu Scriptures: The author draws parallels between descriptions of monks in Hindu scriptures like the Shiva Purana and the practices of Svetambara monks (wearing clothes, carrying a begging bowl, using a brush-like instrument). He argues that these descriptions are more consistent with Svetambara practices than Digambara ones. He also interprets a passage in the Mahabharata mentioning a "naked kshapanak" as referring to a jinakalpi (a type of ascetic who, according to some traditions, was naked), and argues that this doesn't necessarily support the Digambara claim as they deny the existence of such practices at that time, and the Mahabharata's author, Vyasa, is also credited with the Shiva Purana which describes clothed ascetics.

2. Refutation of Digambara Arguments:

   • "Naked" as Equivalent to "Nirgrantha": The author strongly refutes the Digambara interpretation that the term "nirgrantha" (liberated from attachments) implicitly means "naked." He argues based on textual evidence that "nirgrantha" refers to freedom from worldly possessions and attachments, not necessarily nudity.
   • "Gaganaparidhana" (Sky-clad) Interpretation: The author addresses the Digambara claim that the term "gaganaparidhana" used for Rishabhanatha in the Bhagavata Purana signifies nakedness. He explains it as a descriptive term for someone who has renounced all worldly possessions, including clothing, and argues that it doesn't definitively prove nakedness, especially considering the divine garment mentioned in other contexts.
   • Interpretation of Inscriptions and Legends: The author challenges Digambara interpretations of various inscriptions and legends, arguing that they are often misinterpretations or selective readings to support their claims. He also criticizes the Digambara practice of attributing their sect's origins to certain historical periods without solid proof.
   • "Naked Deities" and Folk Beliefs: The author addresses the Digambara argument that the folk belief of "Jain deities are naked" proves their antiquity. He argues that this belief likely arose from the visibility of Digambara idols and doesn't prove their ancientness. He also counters this by mentioning that other sects (like Sthanakavasi) also have folk beliefs associated with them that don't prove their antiquity.

3. Critique of Mr. Pangale's Arguments:

   • The author systematically dissects and refutes the specific arguments made by Mr. Pangale in his tract. He points out inconsistencies, lack of evidence, and what he perceives as biased interpretations in Mr. Pangale's work.
   • He accuses Mr. Pangale of misrepresenting scholars like Dr. Jacobi and Dr. Bhandarkar, and of resorting to "magic tricks" and "wordplay" rather than sound reasoning.
   • He challenges Mr. Pangale's claims about the origin of the Svetambara sect during a famine and the assimilation of Buddhist texts, calling them baseless.

Core Concepts Discussed:

• Parigraha (Possession) and Moha (Attachment): The text delves into the Jain concept of parigraha (possession) and moha (attachment). The author argues that true aparigraha (non-possession) lies in the absence of attachment, not necessarily in the absence of clothing or external implements. He cites Shubhachandracharya and Kundakundacharya to support the idea that even ascetics need certain implements for the protection of life and adherence to the path, and that attachment to these implements is the real sin.
• Sthavirakalpa vs. Jinakalpa: The text touches upon the distinction between two modes of ascetic conduct: Sthavirakalpa (the tradition followed by elders) and Jinakalpa (the tradition followed by the Tirthankaras). The author argues that Sthavirakalpa is not inferior to Jinakalpa and that the latter's perceived superiority was mainly due to the fact that Kevala Jnana (omniscience) was attainable in the Jinakalpa state, a condition that changed over time.
• Purity of Doctrine: The author emphasizes the importance of maintaining the original teachings of Mahavira and criticizes the Digambara sect for deviating from them and creating new interpretations.
• Importance of Evidence: The author consistently stresses the need for verifiable historical, scriptural, and logical evidence to support any claims of antiquity, criticizing the Digambaras for lacking such evidence.

Conclusion:

The author concludes by reiterating that historical, scriptural, and logical evidence overwhelmingly supports the antiquity of the Svetambara sect. He urges for unity among all Jain sects and a focus on spreading the core principles of Jainism, such as ahimsa (non-violence), rather than engaging in divisive debates. He appeals to the Digambara community to abandon their dogmatic adherence to their own interpretations and to consider the evidence presented.

In essence, this text is a robust defense of the Svetambara sect's historical claims, presenting a detailed and evidence-based argument against the Digambara assertion of greater antiquity. It highlights the deep-seated theological and historical differences between the two traditions.