Shatkhandagam Ke Sanjad Padpar Vimarsh

Here is a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Shatkhandagama ke Sanjad Padpar Vimarsh" by Bansidhar Pandit:

This article delves into a significant scholarly debate within the Digambara Jain community concerning the interpretation of the Shatkhandagama, a foundational Jain scripture. The central point of contention is the alleged omission of the word "sanyata" (self-controlled) in a specific verse (93rd verse of Satprarupana) of the scripture.

The Core Controversy:

The article begins by referencing a long-standing dispute between Professor Hiralal Jain and the Digambara Jain community. Professor Jain's statement, questioning fundamental differences between Digambara and Shvetambara sect doctrines, was perceived by the Digambara community as a direct assault on their core beliefs. The Digambaras feared that if left unaddressed, this could lead to a loss of public faith in their traditions.

The Author's Perspective and Critique:

The author, Bansidhar Pandit, acknowledges the right of any scholar to interpret scriptures based on their intellect and the need for the Digambara community to protect its heritage. However, he strongly criticizes the manner in which this debate has unfolded. He argues that the ensuing arguments have devolved into personal attacks, animosity, and a focus on upholding one's own prestige rather than a genuine pursuit of truth. This has led to no constructive resolution and, in fact, has caused divisions and bitterness.

Specific Criticisms of Key Figures:

• Professor Hiralal Jain: Pandit critiques Professor Jain's assertion that the word "sanyata" was mistakenly omitted in the verse. While acknowledging the professor's right to inquire, Pandit finds no evidence of a "curious" or inquisitive spirit in the professor's statement, rather seeing it as a clear refutation of Digambara beliefs. He dismisses the professor's subsequent attempts to pacify the community as meaningless and inappropriate.

• Premiji: Pandit criticizes Premiji's article titled "Justice Has Been Proven" for its arrogant tone, anger, and contempt towards the opposing side. He also disapproves of Premiji's act of publishing a discussion with Professor Pancholi without prior consultation.

• Pujya Pt. Phoolchandji: Pandit notes that the discussion between Professor Jain and Pancholi, which turned into an unnecessary and improper debate due to the chairman's lack of control, was more at fault with the side opposing the professor's statement.

• Pujya Pt. Hiralalji (as editor): Pandit expresses great surprise at Pt. Hiralalji's attempt to distance himself from the responsibility of including "sanyata" in the scripture, even as an editor. He finds it unacceptable that the Mumbai Digambara Jain community used Pt. Hiralalji's weak explanation in a publication opposing Professor Jain's views, suggesting a lack of intellectual integrity.

The Debate on "Sanyata" and its Implications:

The core of the scholarly discussion revolves around the 93rd verse of Satprarupana and its commentary (Dhawala Teeka). The debate centers on the interpretation of the word "manushyani" (female human) and its implications for liberation (moksha) for women.

• The Disputed Verse: The verse discusses whether enlightened beings arise in women during the "hundavasarpini" period. The commentary offers a solution suggesting that while enlightenment is possible, liberation is not for "dravya-striya" (material women) due to their "sanyata-asanayata" (partially controlled) state. The crux of the debate is whether the word "sanyata" was originally present in this verse.

• Differing Translations: Pandit highlights a significant difference in the Hindi translations of the Dhawala Teeka by Pt. Makhanlalji Nyayalamkar and Pt. Ramprasadji Shastri.

  • Pt. Makhanlalji: Considered the existing translation in the printed edition as correct.
  • Pt. Ramprasadji Shastri: Argued that the translation was incorrect due to grammatical errors in the original text. He proposed a different reading, inserting "na" (not) before "nirvriti" (liberation) to support the Digambara view that material women cannot attain moksha. He also interpreted "aivats" (from this) differently.

• Pandit Bansidhar's Analysis of Pt. Ramprasadji's Argument:

  • Pandit agrees with Pt. Ramprasadji's initial point that the "hundavasarpini" period cannot override established principles of Karananuyoga and Dravyanuyoga.
  • However, he strongly criticizes Pt. Ramprasadji's subsequent attempt to alter the text and introduce the word "na" to support his argument, calling it an "unnecessary and strenuous effort" and "Dravidian pranayama."
  • Pandit argues that Pt. Ramprasadji's desire to establish the absence of "sanyata" in the 93rd verse is driven by a fear that its inclusion would undermine the Digambara foundation.

• The Meaning of "Manushyani": Pandit clarifies that the term "manushyani" in Jain scriptures consistently refers to a being with the presence of "paryaptanama karma," "striveda-nokashaya" (feminine passion), and "manushyagati-namakarma" (human destiny karma). This being can be "dravya-purusha" (materially male) or "dravya-stri" (materially female). The Digambara view is that only "dravya-purusha" can attain all 14 stages of spiritual development, while the Shvetambara view includes "dravya-stri."

• The Necessity of "Sanyata": Pandit strongly advocates for the inclusion of "sanyata" in the 93rd verse. He argues that its presence is crucial for maintaining consistency with other verses in the Shatkhandagama, particularly those in the "Kshetra-anugama" and "Sparsha-anugama" sections, which discuss the spiritual development of "manushyani." He believes that without "sanyata," these other passages become inconsistent.

The Root of the Digambara-Shvetambara Difference:

Pandit identifies the core of the Digambara-Shvetambara disagreement not in the number of spiritual stages attainable by a "paryapta manushyani" (which is 14 for both), but in the definition of "manushyani." The Digambaras believe that only a "dravya-purusha" with feminine passion can achieve all 14 stages, while Shvetambaras include "dravya-stri." This, Pandit explains, stems from the Digambara belief that wearing clothes is detrimental to asceticism, a view not shared by the Shvetambaras.

Critique of Arguments Based on Gender Differences (Veda-Vaishmya):

Pandit argues that relying on gender differences ("veda-vaishmya") to support the Digambara denial of liberation for "dravya-stri" is flawed. While gender differences can be harmonized with the Jain principle of 14 spiritual stages, it cannot be used to argue that "dravya-stri" cannot progress beyond the initial five stages.

The Issue of Clothing and Asceticism:

The article touches upon the complex issue of clothing and its relation to asceticism, acknowledging that while the presence of clothes might not be a direct contradiction to asceticism, wearing them is an act of acceptance ("grahan") which is indeed contradictory to true asceticism. He suggests that the difference between the fifth (Digambara) and sixth (Shvetambara) spiritual stages, in terms of clothing, is merely a distinction in defining the boundary between the two.

On Kevali-Kavalahara (Food of the Omniscient):

The author also briefly discusses the concept of an omniscient being consuming food ("kevali-kavalahara"), noting that it appears contradictory to the Jain definition of omniscience. He states that he has not yet reached a conclusion on this matter.

Concluding Thoughts:

Pandit emphasizes that the true benefit to the common populace lies in understanding the principles of "Karananuyoga" (practical conduct) for spiritual progress, rather than getting bogged down in complex philosophical debates. He urges scholars to:

1. Focus on the welfare of society: Instead of dragging society into their debates, they should seek paths for its upliftment.
2. Conduct rigorous research: They should pursue truth with a scientific and objective approach, avoiding personal biases and stubbornness.

Ultimately, Pandit's article is a strong plea for a more scholarly, respectful, and truth-oriented approach to Scriptural interpretation, aiming to resolve long-standing textual disputes for the betterment of the Jain community.