Stree Jatine Drushtiwada Anga Bhanvana Nishedh Par Ek Vichar

This Jain text, "Stree Jatine Drushtiwada Anga Bhanvana Nishedh par Ek Vichar" (A Thought on the Prohibition of Studying the Drushtiwada Anga for Women) by Sukhlal Sanghavi, examines the historical and philosophical reasons behind the prohibition of women studying the Drushtiwada Anga, one of the twelve Angas (limbs) of Jain scripture.

The author argues that Jainism, both in practice and scripture, considers women equal to men in their capacity for physical and spiritual development. He cites examples of accomplished women in physical prowess, arts, and intellectual pursuits to support this claim. The Shvetambara Acharyas (Jain scholars) firmly establish women's right to Kevaljnana (omniscience) and Moksha (liberation), asserting their equal eligibility for spiritual development, a stance they defended against the Digambara Acharyas who held differing views. The text quotes Pandit Rajshekhar, a rhetorician, who also considered women equal to men in their potential as poets, as spiritual development (sanskar) is internal and not dependent on gender.

The prohibition on women studying the Drushtiwada Anga is presented as a contradiction on two fronts:

1. Logical Contradiction: It is illogical to deem women eligible for the highest spiritual attainment (Kevaljnana and Moksha) while simultaneously denying them the study of a specific scriptural knowledge (Drushtiwada, a part of Shruta Jnana or scriptural knowledge). This is likened to giving someone a precious gem and then forbidding them from protecting a seashell, implying a disparity in trust and capability.
2. Scriptural Contradiction: Denying access to the Drushtiwada Anga disrupts the established cause-and-effect relationship in scripture. The text explains that Kevaljnana arises after attaining the first two stages of Shukla Dhyana (pure meditation), which in turn requires knowledge of the Purva Shruta, of which the Drushtiwada Anga is a part. Therefore, barring women from the Drushtiwada Anga impedes their path to Kevaljnana.

The text then delves into the reasons cited for this prohibition, presenting two main viewpoints:

• First Viewpoint (e.g., Jinabhadra Gani Kshamashramana): This perspective attributes the prohibition to inherent mental weaknesses in women, such as triviality, ego, sensory restlessness, and intellectual dullness. These qualities are believed to make them unsuitable for studying the profound Drushtiwada Anga.
• Second Viewpoint (e.g., Haribhadra Suri): This viewpoint attributes the prohibition to aversion and impurity (dvesha and ashuddhi).

The author then attempts to resolve the apparent contradiction by arguing that the prohibition is not absolute but rather a practical restriction based on literal (shabdika) study. He posits that women, through intense spiritual practices like tapas (austerities) and bhavana (meditation), can attain a deep understanding of the Drushtiwada Anga and even Kevaljnana without verbal recitation. This is supported by the idea that knowledge can be acquired through contemplation and inner realization, not solely through rote learning from a teacher.

The text questions the validity of the reasons for prohibiting literal study, asking:

• If a person is deemed capable of understanding the meaning (artha), why deny them the means of verbal study (shabda)?
• Are the mentioned mental flaws (triviality, ego, etc.) exclusive to women? If not, why are men not similarly prohibited?
• Are physical impurities applicable to all women? If not, why a general prohibition?

In conclusion, the author suggests that the prohibition is prāyik (probabilistic), meaning it applies to women in general rather than being a strict, absolute ban. He argues that women capable of attaining higher spiritual states would inherently lack these mental flaws. He also points out that even men considered eligible for studying the Drushtiwada Anga sometimes failed to preserve it due to similar flaws.

The text then offers historical and socio-cultural explanations for this practical prohibition:

1. Lower Participation: Even with equal opportunities, fewer women historically succeeded in deeply studying scriptures compared to men.
2. Historical Context: The influence of other societal norms, particularly the emphasis on physical purity in Vedic traditions (which restricted women from studying the Vedas), likely impacted Jain practices. Even Shvetambara Acharyas, who recognized women's spiritual equality, might have adopted practical restrictions for advanced studies. The importance of preserving the Drushtiwada Anga in practice might have led to its exclusive study being reserved for those who could adhere to stricter purity norms, influenced by neighboring societies.
3. Comparison with Buddhism: The text draws a parallel with Buddhism, where women were initially deemed unsuitable for the monastic order. While Lord Mahavir established a fourfold Jain community from the outset, the text notes that the later Buddhist precedent of women's gradual moral decline might have influenced Jain scholars. Digambara Acharyas outright disqualified women from monasticism, while Shvetambara Acharyas, while maintaining women's spiritual rights, highlighted perceived weaknesses like fickleness, perhaps as a response to societal influences.

In essence, the article argues that while Jainism theoretically affirms women's equal spiritual capacity, the historical prohibition on their literal study of the Drushtiwada Anga was a practical, societal, and perhaps precautionary measure, rather than a denial of their inherent spiritual potential.