Sanjad Pad Ke Sandarbha Me Akalanka Dev Ka Mahattvapurna Abhimat

Here is a comprehensive summary in English of the provided Jain text, focusing on the importance of Akalankadeva's opinion regarding the term 'Sanjad' in the Shatkhandagama:

The text discusses a long-standing debate among Jain scholars concerning the presence of the word 'Sanjad' (संयद) in the 93rd sutra of the Shatkhandagama.

The Controversy:

• First Party: Argues that 'Sanjad' should not be present in sutra 93. Their reasoning is based on the preceding and subsequent verses and the context of the passage, which they believe refers to "dravya-stri" (material woman). According to them, the inclusion of 'Sanjad' would disrupt the flow and established meaning of this section. Prominent supporters of this view include Pt. Makhanlalji Morena, Pt. Ramprasadji Shastri Mumbai, Shri 105 Kshullak Surisinghji, and Pt. Tansukhramji Kala.
• Second Party: Contends that 'Sanjad' should be present in sutra 93. They argue that the sutra refers to "bhav-stri" (woman in terms of inner disposition or gender identity) and that a careful examination of the scriptural context and Virasenacharya's commentary supports the inclusion of 'Sanjad'. They believe it refers to the "bhava-veda" (inner disposition of gender). Supporters of this view include Pt. Banshidharji Indore, Pt. Khubchandji Shastri Mumbai, Pt. Kailashchandraji Shastri Banaras, Pt. Phoolchandji Shastri Banaras, and Pt. Pannalalji Soni Vyavar.

The debate is significant as both factions are considered representative scholars of the Jain community. A meeting was convened by the Bombay Panchayat to resolve the issue, but no definitive conclusion has been reached. Both sides present strong arguments based on logic, scriptural references, and Virasenacharya's commentary.

The author notes that, to their knowledge, no scriptural evidence predating Virasenacharya has been presented to clarify the meaning of these specific sutras in Shatkhandagama. If such earlier evidence were found, it would settle the debate about the presence of 'Sanjad'.

Akalankadeva's Crucial Opinion:

The author then introduces the opinion of Akalankadeva, found in his Tattvartha Vartika, which is described as a monumental work for studying Jain philosophy and scriptures. While researching the 'Sanjad' issue, the author discovered a very clear and important elucidation by Akalankadeva.

Akalankadeva provides a largely complete translation of the relevant sutras from Shatkhandagama in his Tattvartha Vartika. This, the author states, leaves no room for doubt in the minds of readers regarding the meaning of these sutras.

The significance of Akalankadeva's opinion lies in his position: Akalankadeva predates Virasenacharya. The text highlights that Virasenacharya frequently cites and validates Akalankadeva's Tattvartha Vartika in his own commentaries (Dhavala and Jayadhavala). Therefore, Akalankadeva's interpretation of these sutras from Shatkhandagama is considered universally acceptable.

Evidence from Tattvartha Vartika:

The text quotes Akalankadeva from Tattvartha Vartika (page 331, chapter 9, sutra 7):

"In human beings, for the 'paryapta' (fully developed) there are fourteen gunasthanas (stages of spiritual development). For the 'aparyapta' (undeveloped), there are three: mithyadrushti, sasadana-samyagdrushti, and asanyata-samyagdrushti. For human females, for the 'paryapta', there are fourteen gunasthanas in terms of bhava-linga (inner disposition), but only the first five in terms of dravya-linga (external conduct/appearance). For the 'aparyapta', there are only two, as there is no birth of females along with samyaktva (right faith)."

Connecting to Shatkhandagama Sutras:

The text then presents the relevant sutras from Shatkhandagama:

• Sutra 89: Mentions mithyadrushti, sasadana-samyagdrushti, asanyata-samyagdrushti for humans, who can be paryapta or aparyapta.
• Sutra 90: States that samyagmithyadrushti, asanyata-samyagdrushti, and samyata-samyagdrushti individuals are always paryapta.
• Sutra 91: States the same for males.
• Sutra 92: Mentions mithyadrushti and sasadana-samyagdrushti for human females, who can be paryapta or aparyapta.
• Sutra 93: States that samyagmithyadrushti, asanyata-samyagdrushti, samyata-samyagdrushti, and asanyata-samyagdrushti females are always paryapta.

Key Conclusions from Akalankadeva's Exposition:

By comparing Akalankadeva's explanation with the Shatkhandagama sutras, the author draws three significant conclusions:

1. No Birth of Samyagdrushti Females: The text emphasizes that samyagdrushti (right faith) does not arise at the time of a female's birth. This is why only two gunasthanas (the first two) are mentioned for aparyapta females, whereas aparyapta males have three (the first, second, and fourth). This ancient tradition is also supported by Swami Samantabhadra in Ratnakaranda Shravakachara. This indicates the concept is older than Kundakunda or Swami Samantabhadra.
2. Limited Gunasthanas for Aparyapta Females: Only the first two gunasthanas are possible for aparyapta females, and the first, second, and fourth for aparyapta males. This means that bhava-veda or bhava-linga (inner disposition of gender) is not present in the aparyapta state, explaining why aparyapta females don't have 14 gunasthanas like paryapta females. For paryapta females, the 14 gunasthanas are considered in terms of bhava-linga, while only the first five are in terms of dravya-linga.
3. Implications for Female Liberation: These conclusions shed light on the doctrine of "female liberation prohibition" (stri-mukti-nishadh), suggesting it is a tradition originating from Bhagavan Mahavir himself, passed down from before the time of Bhutabali and Pushpadanta, rather than a later innovation by Kundakunda. Akalankadeva's understanding of 14 gunasthanas for paryapta females based on bhava-linga and only five based on dravya-linga supports this. If the sutra only referred to "dravya-stri" (material woman), he would have only mentioned five gunasthanas. Therefore, the argument that the word "paryapta" in the sutra implies "dravya-stri" is deemed inconsistent with Akalankadeva's elucidation. Instead, Akalankadeva's analysis indicates "general woman" (samanya-stri) is the subject, with 14 gunasthanas in terms of bhava-linga.

The Verdict on 'Sanjad':

The author concludes that Akalankadeva's explanation strongly supports the presence of the 'Sanjad' (संयत - restrained/controlled) pada (word) in the sutra. If 'Sanjad' were absent, Akalankadeva's explanation of 14 gunasthanas for paryapta females (in terms of bhava-linga) and five (in terms of dravya-linga) would be inconsistent and unnecessary.

Therefore, the author asserts that Akalankadeva believed 'Sanjad' is present in the sutra and provided a reasoned justification for it. Virasenacharya followed this same path.

Recommendations:

Based on this, the author firmly states that the 'Sanjad' pada is undoubtedly present in the sutra. They recommend that it should be retained in the inscribed copper-plate copies of the sutras. For clarity and to prevent confusion, the relevant quote from Akalankadeva's Tattvartha Vartika should be included as a footnote to sutra 93.

The author respectfully urges scholars who believe 'Sanjad' is absent to reconsider their position in light of Akalankadeva's clear exposition. They also appeal to Shri 108 Acharya Shantishagarji Maharaj to ensure the 'Sanjad' pada is retained in the copper-plate inscriptions.