Tattvarth Ka Digambar Tikao Me Agam Tatha Nirgranthtaki Charcha

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text by Dalsukh Malvania, focusing on the discussion of Agamas and Nirgranthata in the Digambara commentaries on the Tattvartha Sutra:

Book Title: Tattvarth ka Digambar Tikao me Agam tatha Nirgranthtaki Charcha (Discussion of Agamas and Nirgranthata in Digambara Commentaries on Tattvartha) Author: Dalsukh Malvania

Core Argument:

The author, Dalsukh Malvania, examines the Digambara commentaries on the Tattvartha Sutra from Pujyapada to Shrutasagara to trace the evolution of the concepts of Agama (scriptural canon) and Nirgranthata (asceticism, freedom from possessions) and how these evolving interpretations contributed to the growing differences between the Shvetambara and Digambara traditions. The central thesis is that while early commentaries acknowledged the existence and authority of the Agamas, later interpretations, particularly regarding the nature of ascetics and the interpretation of scriptural passages, widened the doctrinal divide. Importantly, Malvania argues that the Digambara tradition, while acknowledging differences in interpretation and the loss of custodians of Agamas, did not fundamentally discuss the disconnection or invalidation of the Agamas themselves.

Key Points and Analysis:

1. Tattvartha Sutra and Early Interpretations:

   • The Tattvartha Sutra itself, according to the author, acknowledges two main divisions of Agamas: Angas (twelve principal scriptures) and Angabahya (scriptures outside the Angas).
   • The author states that the Tattvartha Sutra's author, Umashwati, did not indicate any disagreement regarding the authority or existence of the Agamas. This is evidenced by the consistent interpretation of the sutra on Agamas across both traditions' commentaries.
   • Whether Umashwati was Digambara or Shvetambara is debated, but the Tattvartha Sutra is accepted as authoritative by both, leading to commentaries from both sides.

2. Pujyapada's Sarvarthasiddhi:

   • Pujyapada's commentary, Sarvarthasiddhi, lists the twelve Angas and some Angabahya scriptures (like Dashavaikalika, Uttaradhyayana, etc.). Crucially, Pujyapada does not mention any disruption or disjunction of the Angas, including Dristivada (the fifth Anga).
   • Emergence of Doctrinal Differences: Pujyapada highlights the first signs of difference in interpretations of Agamas regarding the nature of Kevalins (omniscient beings). He considers the Shvetambara tradition's assertion that Kevalins consume food (Kavalahara) and that eating meat is permissible (though in specific contexts) as "Avarnavada" (defamatory or inaccurate descriptions) of the Kevalins.
   • Nirgranthata and Pujyapada: Pujyapada clearly states that even ascetics with less rigorous vows (like Pulaka, etc.) are considered Nirgranthas (without possessions) from a certain perspective (Naigama Sangraha Naya), even if they have some minor indulgences. This indicates that the strict definition of Nirgrantha as entirely unclad and without any possessions was not yet the sole defining factor, and the distinction between the Shvetambara and Digambara understanding of an ascetic's outward appearance and the meaning of "possession" was not yet starkly defined.

3. Acharya Akalanka's Rajavartika:

   • Akalanka provides detailed descriptions of the contents of the Angas, suggesting his textual understanding might have differed in some aspects from the currently available Shvetambara Agamas.
   • No Mention of Agama Disruption: Like Pujyapada, Akalanka does not mention any disruption or lack of authority of the Agamas.
   • Angabahya Classification: Akalanka introduces a classification of Angabahya scriptures into Kalika (periodic) and Utkalika (non-periodic), a distinction not found in Sarvarthasiddhi but present in later Shvetambara texts. This suggests the development of new classifications within the tradition.
   • Nirgranthata Refined: Akalanka clarifies Pujyapada's view on ascetics like Pulaka. He emphasizes that while they might be considered Nirgranthas in a broader sense (Sangraha Naya), they are not Nirgranthas in the strict, absolute sense (Nischaya Naya) because they lack the essential qualities of a true Nirgrantha. He also argues that even a broken vow ascetic cannot be called a Nirgrantha if they lack the outward form (rupa) of a Nirgrantha, thus implying the importance of the outward Digambara form.

4. Acharya Vidyānanda's Tattvartha Shlokavartika:

   • Vidyānanda reaffirms the authority of the Angas and Angabahya scriptures.
   • Emphasizing Outward Form: Vidyānanda explicitly brings in the issue of clothing (vastradi) in his discussion on ascetics like Pulaka. He argues that those possessing external items like clothes cannot be considered Nirgranthas. He states that ascetics like Pulaka can be considered Nirgranthas in practice (vyavahara) and even in essence (nishchaya) due to their general adherence, but those with clothes cannot be. This clearly demarcates the Digambara view of the Nirgrantha ideal as necessarily unclad.
   • Schism Deepens: Vidyānanda's interpretation underscores the growing divide between the two traditions on the essential characteristics of an ascetic.

5. Shrutasagara's Commentary:

   • Shrutasagara's commentary is noted for its detailed awareness of Shvetambara scriptures, even citing specific criticisms against them.
   • Shrutasagara's Denunciation of Shvetambaras: He refers to Shvetambaras as "Jainabhasas" (imposters or pseudo-Jains) and criticizes their acceptance of clothes for monks, even as an exception, considering the unclad state as the direct cause of liberation.
   • Elaborating on Criticisms: Shrutasagara reiterates and expands upon the criticisms of Kevalins and Agamas found in earlier commentaries, specifically mentioning criticisms related to meat-eating, alcohol, and even incestuous relationships and water-filtering as grave sins, linking these criticisms to Shvetambara scriptural interpretations.

6. The Question of Agama Disruption:

   • The author posits that the reason none of these Digambara commentators discuss the "disruption" or "invalidation" of the Agamas is their underlying belief that Agamas are anadi nidhan (without beginning or end).
   • Focus on Custodians: Instead of the Agamas themselves being disrupted, the Digambara tradition emphasizes the disruption or disappearance of the Agamadharas (custodians or preservers of the Agamas). This is seen as a more accurate representation of their view.
   • Two Views on Loss: The author notes two perspectives within Digambara texts regarding the loss: one attributing it to severe famines (dushkala) and the other to the destruction of the custodians (anuyogadara vinashta).
   • Relevance: Therefore, the question of "Agama disconnection" becomes irrelevant if the Agamas are considered eternal and their re-emergence is accepted. The focus shifts to the preservation of their knowledge and practice through the lineage of masters.

Conclusion:

Malvania's analysis demonstrates that while the Tattvartha Sutra and its early Digambara commentaries by Pujyapada and Akalanka did not indicate any fundamental disagreement about the existence or authority of the Agamas, the later commentaries, particularly by Vidyānanda and Shrutasagara, show a significant hardening of doctrinal positions. This hardening is most evident in the interpretation of Nirgranthata, where the Digambara tradition increasingly emphasized the necessity of uncladness as a fundamental criterion, leading to the denunciation of the Shvetambara practice of wearing clothes. The author concludes that the perceived "disruption" of the Agamas was not a primary concern for Digambara commentators because their fundamental belief in the eternal nature of the Agamas and the subsequent re-emergence of their knowledge rendered such a discussion moot. The focus remained on the lineage of masters and the accurate preservation of these eternal teachings.