Shravak Pratikraman Me Shraman Sutra Ka Sannivesh

Here's a comprehensive summary of the Jain text "Shravak Pratikraman me Shraman Sutra ka Sannivesh" by Madanlal Katariya, focusing on the core arguments and presented in English:

The article "Shravak Pratikraman me Shraman Sutra ka Sannivesh" (The Inclusion of Shraman Sutra in Shravak Pratikraman) by Madanlal Katariya addresses a significant point of contention within the Sthanakvasi Jain tradition regarding the recitation of certain verses, specifically the "Shaiyasutra" and other "Shraman Sutra" texts, during the Pratikraman (confession/repentance) ceremony performed by lay followers (Shravaks).

The Central Conflict:

The core of the debate is whether Shravaks should recite "Shraman Sutras" during their Pratikraman. While Mandirmargi and Terapanth sects do not include these verses, some Sthanakvasi followers do. This article aims to refute the reasoning behind the Sthanakvasi practice.

Main Argument: The Meaning of "Shraman"

The author's primary argument rests on the definition of the word "Shraman."

• "Shraman" means Monk, not Lay Follower: Katariya asserts that the term "Shraman" exclusively refers to a mendicant (Sadhu) and "Shramanvya" refers to the state of being a mendicant. It never refers to a lay follower (Shravak).
• Scriptural Evidence: To support this, the author cites numerous verses from key Jain scriptures like the Dashavaikalika Sutra, Uttaradhyayan Sutra, Nandi Sutra, and Anuyogadvara Sutra. In all these instances, the word "Shraman" is used to denote monks, and there is no instance where a Shravak is addressed or referred to as "Shraman."

Addressing Counter-Arguments and Misinterpretations:

The article then addresses common arguments that attempt to justify the inclusion of Shraman Sutras in Shravak Pratikraman:

1. Bhagavati Sutra's "Shraman Sangh":

   • The Claim: Some argue that the Bhagavati Sutra (21, 20 U.8) includes Shravaks and Shravikas within the "Shraman Sangh" (congregation of Shramans), implying Shravaks are also Shramans.
   • The Rebuttal: Katariya clarifies that "Shraman Sangh" in this context means a "Shraman-centric Sangh" or a Sangh led by Shramans. The fourfold assembly (Sadhu, Sadhvi, Shravak, Shravika) is mentioned as being part of this Shraman-centric Sangh. Since monks are the primary practitioners of Mahavratas (great vows), they are considered "Pradhan" (principal) and thus the Sangh is "Shraman-centric." Shravaks, as followers of Anuvratas (minor vows), are secondary. Therefore, this passage does not equate Shravaks with Shramans.

2. "Shraman" during Religious Observances (Samayik):

   • The Claim: Some believe that when a Shravak performs religious practices like Samayik, they can be called "Shraman" for that period.
   • The Rebuttal: This is also refuted with scriptural evidence. The Bhagavati Sutra (8th Shatak, 5th Uddeshak) refers to a Shravak performing Samayik as "Shramanopasak" (worshipper of Shramans), not "Shraman." Furthermore, even the highest-ranking Shravak (eleventh Pratima) identifies themselves as a "Shramanopasak," not a "Shraman." Therefore, even during religious observances, a Shravak does not become a Shraman.

3. Self-Identification as "Shraman":

   • The Claim: What is the harm if a Shravak calls themselves a "Shraman" during Pratikraman?
   • The Rebuttal: The article highlights that verses in the Shraman Sutras, such as "Shramano'ham Sanjaya..." (I am a Shraman, restrained...), directly claim the speaker's identity as a Shraman. For a Shravak to make such a declaration would be a form of mishavada (falsehood or untruth), as it contradicts their actual status. The example of the eleventh Pratima holder calling themselves a "Shramanopasak" reinforces this.

4. Recitation of Thirty-Three Principles (Teytis Bol):

   • The Claim: While many principles might be related to Shravaks, the recitation of the "Teytis Bol" (Thirty-Three Principles) should be acceptable.
   • The Rebuttal: The author cites the Sthananga Sutra, where Lord Mahavir compares his discourse on the Teytis Bol for Shraman-Nirgranthas (monks) to the future Tirthankar Mahapadma. Crucially, the enumeration includes "eleven Shravak Pratimas" but still within the context of what Mahavir taught to Shraman-Nirgranthas. The article explains this by stating that monks are instructed on these to understand and preach them, not to practice them themselves. The distinction is clear when the text later contrasts what Mahavir taught Shraman-Nirgranthas (five Mahavratas, lack of clothes) with what he taught the Shravak Dharma (five Anuvratas, twelvefold practice). The absence of "Shraman-Nirgranthas" when describing the Shravak Dharma further solidifies that the term "Shraman" is specifically for monks.

5. Recitation of Specific Verses like "Padikrami Chaukalam...":

   • The Claim: Why can't a Shravak recite verses like "Padikrami Chaukalam Sajjhayarasya Akaranataya..." (I confess the faults of not doing daily study regularly, of improper cleansing of bedding and utensils for both times...)?
   • The Rebuttal: These verses are specifically designed for monks who perform continuous and meticulous cleansing (pratilekhana) of their belongings (utensils, bedding, etc.) at all times. A Shravak's daily life does not involve such rigorous and constant cleansing. If a Shravak were to undertake such cleansing for all their possessions, it would consume their entire day. The scriptural basis for this detailed cleansing and its associated penances is found in texts like the Nishith Sutra, which apply to monks.

6. Clerical Practices During Upvas (Fasting Days):

   • The Claim: Since Shravaks also perform cleansing during Upvas, why can't they recite these verses?
   • The Rebuttal: Upvas is not a daily practice for Shravaks. Moreover, the penances for any lapses in Upvas are already covered by the "Atichar Shuddhi" (purification of transgressions) verses specific to Upvas, such as those related to improper cleansing of bedding. These general verses are sufficient for Shravaks, and separate, detailed verses for each specific lapse are unnecessary and would overburden the Shravak Pratikraman.

7. The "Tradition" Argument:

   • The Claim: Some sects have been reciting these verses for a long time, so it should be accepted.
   • The Rebuttal: The author questions the origin and validity of such traditions, stating that there is no historical evidence of this practice in ancient times. Citing the "Pravachanasarodhara" which states "Sadhus recite their own Sutras, and Shravaks their own," the author argues for a clear distinction. He also references teachings of revered Acharyas like Dharmasinhji, who deemed the practice unnecessary for Shravaks. The author emphasizes that any tradition must be in accordance with the scriptures (Agamas). If tradition alone were the criterion, then the use of microphones, practiced by some sects, would also have to be accepted.

Conclusion:

The article concludes by strongly advocating for the adherence to scriptural evidence. It argues that the tradition of reciting Shraman Sutras in Shravak Pratikraman, while present in some sects, is not supported by the Jain Agamas. Therefore, the author urges followers to recognize the true meaning of "Shraman" and to recite only the appropriate "Shravak Sutras" during their Pratikraman, aligning with the teachings of the scriptures rather than a potentially later-developed, unsupported tradition. The article highlights that many respected lineages of Jains do not follow this practice, further reinforcing the argument for adhering to scriptural purity.