Sudarshan Pandit Pratyuttaram Va Bhramshodhak - Book Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary of the Jain text "Sudarshan Pandit Pratyuttaram Va Bhramshodhak" by Mangalvijay, based on the provided pages:

Title: Sudarshan Pandit Pratyuttaram Va Bhramshodhak (Sudarshan Pandit's Rebuttal and Error Corrector)

Author: Upadhyay Shri Mangalvijayji Maharaj, a scholar of logic (Nyayavisharad, Nyaytirth) and disciple of Acharya Shri Vijaydharmasurishwarji.

Publisher: Hemchand Shah, Kolkata.

Purpose: This text is a critical examination and refutation of the views presented by a Jain scholar named Sudarshan, who resided in Bhutpur and authored a work titled "Kallolini." The author, Mangalvijay, believes Sudarshan's work contained significant errors and misconceptions ("bhraanti") regarding Jain philosophy and principles, leading to confusion among Jains. Mangalvijay aims to correct these errors.

Core Argument and Refutations:

The central theme of the text is Mangalvijay's rebuttal of specific philosophical propositions made by Sudarshan. Mangalvijay systematically addresses and refutes each of Sudarshan's points, presenting the correct Jain perspective based on scriptural authority and logical reasoning.

Here's a breakdown of the key points of contention and Mangalvijay's responses:

Sudarshan's Proposition 1: The entire universe, in terms of cause and effect, being permanent/impermanent, true/false, and identical/different, is attributed to the Arhat (Jain Tirthankaras).
- Mangalvijay's Rebuttal: This is declared asatya (untrue) and not in line with Jain scripture. Jainism does not posit such a universal attribution to the Arhat. Mangalvijay accuses Sudarshan of presenting an unsubstantiated claim and potentially confusing Jainism with Buddhist philosophy.
Sudarshan's Proposition 2: Souls attain higher states based on karma and resultant bodily transformations.
- Mangalvijay's Rebuttal: While Jainism acknowledges karma and its effects, the statement "etc." after karma is considered too broad. Jainism emphasizes the soul's inherent nature and the role of right faith, knowledge, and conduct in liberation.
Sudarshan's Proposition 3: The cycle of transmigration (samsara) is beginningless.
- Mangalvijay's Rebuttal: Jainism indeed accepts dravyatah (in terms of substance) the beginninglessness of samsara, but paryayatah (in terms of modes or transformations) it is not considered beginningless. This distinction is crucial.
Sudarshan's Proposition 4: Liberation (moksha) is attained through the shedding of impurities (mala-dharana) and realization of the soul's true nature (atma-jnana).
- Mangalvijay's Rebuttal: This is fundamentally incorrect. Liberation in Jainism is achieved through right faith, knowledge, and conduct (samyag-darshan, jnana, charitra) leading to the complete destruction of karmas (kritsna-karma-kshaya), not through "mala-dharana" (carrying impurities). He sarcastically likens the idea of liberation through impurity to an aghori or the son of a barren woman achieving it. He also refutes the idea that shedding the gross body (nirmokata) or upward movement itself is moksha. He clarifies that prakriti (primordial matter) is a concept of Sankhya and Vedanta, not Jainism.
Sudarshan's Other Points and Mangalvijay's Criticisms:
- Cause and Effect: Mangalvijay criticizes Sudarshan's understanding of cause and effect, particularly regarding the interaction between the inert (jada) and conscious (chetana) principles, suggesting a misunderstanding of Jain ontology and potentially conflating it with Buddhist momentary causation.
- True Nature of the Soul: Mangalvijay emphasizes that souls are of the nature of consciousness (upayogaswarupah) and are fundamentally distinct from the inert. He refutes any notion of their non-difference or identity with the inert.
- Karma: Mangalvijay rejects the idea of a singular "karma-vada" as presented by Sudarshan, aligning with the Mimamsa school, and states that Jainism adheres to a pancha-karana-vada (theory of five causes). He also clarifies that siddha souls (liberated souls) are not subject to karma.
- Vedas and Jainism: A significant portion of the text is dedicated to refuting Sudarshan's claims about the Jain religion originating from or being present within the Vedas. Mangalvijay argues that the Vedas contain verses and mantras that allude to Jain Tirthankaras (like Rishabha, Sumati, Shreyans, Arishtanemi, and Mahavir) and their teachings. He argues that the Tirthankaras are older than the Vedas and that attempts to trace Jainism to the Vedas are flawed, especially if the Vedas are considered beginningless. He also critiques the violent rituals described in some Vedic interpretations, contrasting them with Jain non-violence.
- Concepts of Astikya (Theism/Belief) and Nastikya (Atheism/Disbelief): Mangalvijay engages in a discussion about the terms "astikya" and "nastikya," arguing that Sudarshan misattributes them. He contends that adhering to Vedic injunctions, including violent rituals, makes one "astika" in Sudarshan's view, while those who reject this violence are labeled "nastika." He asserts that true "astikya" lies in adherence to Jain principles, particularly non-violence.
- Shruta-Kevali: Mangalvijay clarifies the meaning of Shruta-Kevali (one who has attained complete knowledge of the scriptures) in Jainism, refuting Sudarshan's potentially incorrect understanding.
- Knowledge of the Soul and Sciences: Mangalvijay addresses the concept of knowledge related to the soul and scientific understanding, critiquing what he perceives as superficial or incorrect explanations from Sudarshan. He points to authoritative Jain texts like the Tattvartha Sutra, Nandisutra, and Sthananga Sutra for accurate descriptions of subjects like Avadhi and Manah-paryaya knowledge.
- Comparison with other Philosophies: Mangalvijay frequently draws comparisons between Sudarshan's views and those of other philosophical schools like Buddhism, Sankhya, and Vedanta, highlighting what he considers misrepresentations or incorrect appropriations of these philosophies within Sudarshan's work. He criticizes the notion of attributing Jain principles to Shankaracharya's commentaries without proper understanding.

Praise and Patronage:

The text also includes acknowledgments of support. Page 5 mentions the financial assistance for printing from "Bothera-kul-chandra," specifically mentioning Udayachandra Charuna, for their contribution to the "Bhranshoshak" (error corrector). Page 21 describes the establishment of a large school in Raghunathpur, Manbhum, a region with a significant Jain population. This effort was influenced by the teachings of monks like Mangalvijay and Prabhakarvijay, and supported by donations from individuals like Bahadur Singhji Sindhi.

Overall Tone and Style:

Mangalvijay's tone is scholarly, assertive, and critical. He uses strong language to refute Sudarshan's points, often accusing him of ignorance, misunderstanding, and presenting falsehoods. The text is written in Sanskrit verse, employing logical arguments and referencing Jain scriptures to support his refutations.

In essence, "Sudarshan Pandit Pratyuttaram Va Bhramshodhak" is a polemical work aimed at correcting what the author, Mangalvijay, perceived as fundamental errors in a contemporary Jain scholar's interpretation of Jain doctrines, ensuring the integrity and accurate transmission of Jain philosophy.