Prashnottar Vichar

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, focusing on the core arguments presented:

Book Title: Prashnottar Vichar (Questions and Answers for Consideration) Author: Unknown Publisher: ZZZ Unknown Catalog Link: https://jainqq.org/explore/035214/1

This text appears to be a collection of questions and detailed answers (or rather, arguments and counter-arguments) concerning various points of Jain doctrine and practice, particularly focusing on the interpretation of scriptures and the validity of practices within different Jain traditions (Gachs). The primary focus of this excerpt is a debate with the Tapgach.

Core Conflict:

The central theme is a critique by the author (likely representing the Kharatar-gach or a similar tradition) of certain interpretations and practices held by the Tapgach, particularly those of Shri Anand Sagarji, a scholar from the Tapgach. The author aims to demonstrate that the Tapgach's positions on several key issues are contradictory to scriptural evidence and established Jain principles.

Key Issues Debated:

1. The Birth of Lord Mahavir (The Six Kalyanaks):

   • Tapgach Position (as presented by the critic): The Tapgach, specifically through scholars like Vinay Vijayji and Dharmasagarji, allegedly considers the conception of Lord Mahavir in the womb of Devananda (a Brahmin woman) and his subsequent transfer to the womb of Trishala (a Kshatriya woman) as an "Akalyanak" (inauspicious) and a "Neechgotra Vipak" (result of low lineage). They are accused of limiting the Kalyanaks to five.
   • Critic's Argument: The author vehemently refutes this, citing scriptural evidence from the Kalpasutra, its commentaries by Shri Kulmandan Suri and Shri Prithvichandra Suri, and the Sulasa Charitra. These sources, according to the critic, explicitly state that Lord Mahavir's conception and transfer to Trishala's womb (Garbhopahar) was a Kalyanak (auspicious event), ordained by Indra. The text repeatedly emphasizes that ancient Acharyas and scriptures consider this a significant event, directly challenging the Tapgach's interpretation as "Utsutra Prapanna" (unscriptural).
   • Supporting Evidence Cited:
     • Indra's statement: "Seyam khalu mamapi – Tatash shreyah khalu mamapi" (This is indeed beneficial for me – therefore, it is certainly beneficial for me too).
     • The six Kalyanaks are consistently mentioned in Jain scriptures and commentaries.

2. The Practice of Paushadh Vrat (Fasting on Holy Days):

   • Tapgach Position (as presented by the critic): The Tapgach allegedly insists that Paushadh can be performed on any day (parva or aparva). They are also accused of avoiding Paushadh on actual festival days when there's an overlap in festivities and instead practicing it on non-festival days, or actively discouraging it on certain festival days due to perceived procedural issues.
   • Critic's Argument: The author argues that numerous scriptures and commentaries by respected Acharyas like Shri Haribhadra Suri, Shri Hemchandracharya, and others clearly state that Paushadh Vrat is to be observed on specific, prescribed days (prati-niyata divasa), which are primarily festival days (parva din). They cite the prohibition of performing it on every day. The critic criticizes the Tapgach for selectively interpreting these texts, ignoring the prohibition of daily observance while adhering to the "prati-niyata divasa" aspect only for their convenience, and incorrectly claiming that the scriptures don't prohibit daily practice.
   • Supporting Evidence Cited:
     • Shri Haribhadra Suri's commentary on the Avashyak Sutra and Shravak Pragyaapti Vrutti: Paushadh is for specific days, not every day.
     • Various other commentaries and texts (Tatvartha Sutra, Suyagdang Sutra, etc.) defining Paushadh as a festival-day observance.
     • The logic behind observing festivals on sunrise-aligned days, even if it means adjusting to a previous or subsequent day.

3. Calendar and Festival Observance (particularly related to Paushadh and Pratikraman):

   • Tapgach Position (as presented by the critic): The Tapgach is accused of misinterpreting calendar rules, particularly regarding the observance of festivals (like Paushadh and Pratikraman) when there are two consecutive days of the same tithi (e.g., two Chaturdashi or two Amavasya). They are accused of performing these rituals on a non-festival day (e.g., a Trayodashi instead of a Chaturdashi) to avoid perceived "avdhi" (procedural error) or to gain some other advantage, thereby violating scriptural injunctions and "Agam-viruddha" (against scripture). They are also accused of observing rituals on days that are not sunrise-aligned.
   • Critic's Argument: The author emphasizes the scriptural mandate to follow the sunrise-aligned tithi for festivals. They argue that deviating from this, and performing rituals on a Tithi that is not supported by the sun-rise alignment, especially when the actual festival day (like Chaturdashi) is avoided for non-scriptural reasons, is a grave error leading to "Agam-viruddha" practices and "Papa Bandhan" (bondage of karma). The critic highlights that the Tapgach's justification for avoiding festival days is unfounded and leads to the violation of scriptural dictates.
   • Supporting Evidence Cited:
     • Various verses and commentaries emphasizing the primacy of the sunrise-aligned tithi for festivals.
     • The principle of observing rituals on the correct, scripture-aligned days, rather than creating new interpretations based on convenience.
     • The concept of "Kala Purush" and the importance of adherence to established calendrical practices.

4. The Lineage and Practices of Kharatar-gach Acharyas:

   • Tapgach Position (as presented by the critic): The Tapgach is accused of making false claims about the history and lineage of the Kharatar-gach, particularly regarding Acharyas like Shri Jinavallabh Suri and Shri Abhaydev Suri. They are accused of alleging that Shri Abhaydev Suri (the commentator on the Navaanga Sutras) did not initiate Shri Jinavallabh Suri into higher vows or confer the Acharya title, and that the Kharatar-gach lineage is based on fabricated history.
   • Critic's Argument: The author presents extensive evidence from various authoritative texts (Pattavalis, commentaries on Sarthashatak, Updesh Tarangini, Kalpa Sutra commentaries, etc.) to establish the historical facts: Shri Abhaydev Suri was a disciple of Shri Jineshwar Suri (who was initiated by Shri Bhavanchandra Suri). Shri Jinavallabh Suri was a disciple of Shri Jineshwar Suri and then became a disciple of Shri Abhaydev Suri, receiving higher consecration (Upsampada). The critic claims that the Tapgach's assertions are based on animosity and misinterpretations, and that the Kharatar-gach lineage and its history are well-documented and scripturally supported. They also refute claims about the origin of the "Khartar" title and the establishment of the Kharatar-gach.
   • Supporting Evidence Cited:
     • Detailed accounts of the guru-shishya lineage from multiple texts, consistently pointing to the Kharatar-gach lineage.
     • Historical records of key Acharyas and their contributions.
     • The origin and meaning of the "Khartar" title given to Shri Jineshwar Suri.

5. The Practice of Sāmayika (A Jain meditation/vow):

   • Tapgach Position (as presented by the critic): The Tapgach is accused of practicing Sāmayika incorrectly, specifically in the sequence of rituals. They are said to perform the Karemi Bhaante Saamaayiyam (the verbal affirmation of the vow) after the Iryavahi (a ritual of careful movement and confession), which the critic deems incorrect. They also seem to question the repetition of the Sāmayika affirmation.
   • Critic's Argument: The author asserts, based on numerous scriptures and commentaries (Avashyak Sutra, Shravak Dharma Prakaran, Navaanga Sutra commentary by Shri Abhaydev Suri, Panchashak commentary, Yashodeva Upadhyay's texts, etc.), that the correct procedure is to first utter the Karemi Bhaante Saamaayiyam to affirm the vow and renounce harmful activities, and then perform the Iryavahi. This sequence is crucial for the purity of the Sāmayika. The critic accuses the Tapgach of misinterpreting scriptures to justify their reversed practice.
   • Supporting Evidence Cited:
     • Explicit scriptural passages and commentaries detailing the sequence: Vow affirmation first, then Iryavahi.
     • The logic behind the vow affirmation preceding the Iryavahi, as the affirmation defines the scope of the vow.

6. The Observance of Paushadh and Other Rituals by Women:

   • Tapgach Position (as presented by the critic): The Tapgach is accused of imposing extreme restrictions on women regarding religious practices, particularly during menstruation ("Ritusamay"). They are said to prohibit women from performing various rituals, including temple visits, idol worship, reading scriptures, devotional singing, and even touching religious objects, often citing severe karmic consequences.
   • Critic's Argument: The author acknowledges that scriptures do mention certain precautions regarding impurity, especially relating to physical contact with idols by women during menstruation, to prevent Ashanata (disrespect or desecration) and potential negative karmic outcomes for both the woman and the idol's presiding deity. However, the critic argues that the Tapgach's pronouncements are excessively harsh, punitive, and go beyond scriptural injunctions. They claim that the scriptures generally allow women to engage in devotional activities (like singing, reading, offering flowers) and that the absolute prohibition cited by the Tapgach is an extreme interpretation and a misrepresentation of the scriptures, creating unnecessary hardship and fear. The author cites texts like "Pushpavatee Vichar" and "Hirprashna" which, while acknowledging some precautions, do not support such extreme prohibitions as imposed by the Tapgach.
   • Supporting Evidence Cited:
     • Scriptural references allowing women to engage in various devotional acts.
     • Texts that mention precautions regarding physical contact with idols, but not outright bans on all religious activities.
     • The concept of varying levels of purity and the need for appropriate context.

Overall Tone and Purpose:

The text is highly critical and argumentative. The author systematically dissects the Tapgach's positions, presenting scriptural evidence and logical reasoning to demonstrate their perceived errors. The primary goal is to uphold the scriptural accuracy and the established practices of their own tradition, while challenging the Tapgach to provide scriptural justification for their differing views. The repeated call for the Tapgach's Shri Anand Sagarji to publish his answers to these questions underscores the intent to engage in a public debate and expose what the author considers to be deviations from true Jain doctrine.