Tithi Charcha - Book Summary | JainGPT

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Tithi Charcha," focusing on the issues and events described:

Book Title: Tithi Charcha Author: Shilchandrasuri Publisher: Z_Vijaynandansuri_Smarak_Granth_012053_HR.pdf Catalog Link: https://jainqq.org/explore/249670/1

This excerpt from "Tithi Charcha" details a significant and prolonged dispute within the Tapagachcha sect of Jainism concerning the correct observance of the Samvatsari festival (a major Jain holy day). The central conflict revolves around differing interpretations of the calendar and the day on which Samvatsari should be celebrated.

The Genesis of the Dispute (1992 AD):

The problem originated in 1992 AD when the common (Laukik) calendar showed an extra day (vruddhi) for the Bhadrava Sud 5th.
The senior acharyas, including Surisamrat and Acharya Shri VijaySiddhisuri Maharaj, decided to observe Samvatsari on the 4th of Bhadrava, thereby avoiding two 5th days and adhering to established scriptural traditions. This is referred to as the "one-tithi" faction.
However, a dissenting group, driven by a desire to create a new precedent, decided to keep both 5th days and observe Samvatsari on the second 5th (which was the commonly accepted first 5th in the Laukik calendar). This became known as the "two-tithi" faction.

Escalation and Conflict:

This divergence led to a major schism within the Sangha (community). Leaders recognized this as a sign of potential conflict and attempted to mediate.
Surisamrat proposed that the decision made that year, following established practice, should be upheld, and all acharyas would convene after the monsoon to deliberate and decide on the matter.
However, the dissenting group rejected this proposal, exhibiting a rigid and obstinate attitude. This resulted in the formation of two distinct factions: the "Ek-tithi" (one-tithi) and the "Be-tithi" (two-tithi) parties.
The conflict intensified in the following year (1993 AD). Newspapers and periodicals became battlegrounds, with accusations and counter-accusations, often with distorted or biased presentations of facts. The level of abusive language also escalated, leading to widespread criticism, strife, and envy.
Well-wishers of the Sangha were deeply distressed by the failure of reconciliation efforts.

Surisamrat's Stance and Approach:

Surisamrat's principle was to remain detached from newspaper debates and articles, believing that Sadhus should not engage in such activities.
His policy was to avoid confrontation but to engage in reasoned discussion when faced with opposing views, aiming to guide them towards the correct path.
He largely remained silent on the "Tithi Charcha" issue, not because he was unconcerned, but because he was eager for a resolution. He would offer impartial advice and guidance when approached by leaders from both factions.
Acharya Shri Vijayanandan Suri Maharaj shared Surisamrat's clarity of thought and often had similar insights, actively participating in the discussions and sharing the responsibility.

Unsuccessful Reconciliation Attempts:

Both Surisamrat and Vijayanandan Suri Maharaj believed that reconciliation was unlikely unless both sides were open to understanding and accepting the truth. Despite this, they did not shy away from participating in reconciliation efforts.
1993 AD Attempt: A proposal was made for the acharyas of both factions to meet in Khambhat to resolve the issue. Surisamrat, despite his ill health, agreed and began a journey but the opposing side reneged on their commitment midway.
1998 AD Agreement: A new approach was proposed where Seth Kasturbhai Lalbhai would act as an arbitrator, appointing a mediator who would hear both sides through scriptural debates (shastrarth) and present a decision acceptable to all.
A draft proposal was prepared, signed by one acharya from each side, and submitted to Seth Kasturbhai.
Seth Kasturbhai sent five prominent individuals to meet Surisamrat to seek his consent and advice on the draft.
Surisamrat's preference was for public and oral debates, not written ones, due to his foresight.
Vijayanandan Suri Maharaj conveyed Surisamrat's willingness for public, oral debates. However, upon reading the draft, it was discovered that it did not explicitly mention public and oral debates.
Vijayanandan Suri Maharaj proposed three ways for oral debates: in royal courts, or in Palitana in the presence of the entire Sangha, or in a smaller setting with the five gentlemen and Seth Kasturbhai.
The opposing party rejected the draft prepared by Vijayanandan Suri Maharaj because it closed loopholes present in their previous draft.

Further Attempts and Persistent Disagreements:

In 2000 AD, Surisamrat was in Khambhat during the monsoon, as was Acharya Shri VijayLabdhisuri Maharaj, who was also keen on resolving the dispute.
The two acharyas met and expressed their desire to end the "tithi" conflict. Surisamrat agreed to follow whatever VijayLabdhisuri Maharaj proposed.
Following this meeting, a plan was devised where Nemisuri Maharaj and Labdhisuri Maharaj would jointly decide on the Samvatsari and tithi issue, with their decision being acceptable to both factions and the entire Tapagachcha. If they disagreed, they would appoint three or five acharyas from the Tapagachcha to resolve the differences.
Written consent from their respective factions was also to be obtained.
This agreement brought joy to Khambhat, which had suffered greatly from the tithi conflict. However, the opposing faction's internal elements, who did not desire peace, sabotaged the effort.
Vijayramchandrasuri Maharaj's arrival in Khambhat, instead of providing written consent to VijayLabdhisuri Maharaj, ultimately derailed the reconciliation attempt. VijayLabdhisuri Maharaj informed Surisamrat that their efforts had failed.

The 2004 AD Samvatsari Dispute:

In 2004 AD, a further division occurred during Samvatsari.
The "two-tithi" faction observed Samvatsari on Tuesday, keeping the Bhadrava Sud 5th without decay (kshaya) and combining the 4th and 5th.
Acharya Shri Sagar Anand Suri Maharaj and others observed Samvatsari on Monday, accepting the decay of the 5th and observing it on the 4th, or accepting the decay of the 3rd and observing it on the 4th.
Surisamrat and his followers, following centuries of established practice and the precedent set in 1952, 1961, and 1989, observed Samvatsari on Tuesday, the 4th of Bhadrava, by accepting the decay of the 6th of Bhadrava Sud.
Despite attempts to persuade Surisamrat to align with the Monday observance, he remained firm in his adherence to the established scriptural tradition.
Newspapers published articles criticizing Surisamrat, labeling him with negative attributes.
Surisamrat and Vijayanandan Suri Maharaj remained steadfast, unaffected by the criticism.
A detailed and well-reasoned letter from Vijayanandan Suri Maharaj to Muni Shri Darshanvijayji defended their position, citing scriptural evidence, historical precedents, and the opinions of respected acharyas. The letter emphasized that unity lies in adhering to the established tradition, not in superficial alignment of dates.

Key Themes and Takeaways:

Importance of Tradition: The text highlights the deep respect for established scriptural and traditional practices within Jainism.
Impact of Stubbornness: The "two-tithi" faction's inflexible attitude is presented as the primary driver of the ongoing conflict.
Leadership and Foresight: Surisamrat and Vijayanandan Suri Maharaj are portrayed as wise leaders with foresight, advocating for reasoned dialogue and adherence to correct principles.
Failed Reconciliation Efforts: The narrative underscores the difficulty of achieving consensus when fundamental disagreements and underlying motivations are present.
Role of Media: The use of newspapers and periodicals in escalating the conflict is evident.
Enduring Nature of the Dispute: The "Tithi Charcha" is depicted as a deeply entrenched issue with no easy resolution, continuing to divide the community.

In essence, "Tithi Charcha" provides a detailed account of a schism within the Tapagachcha, driven by differing interpretations of the Jain calendar and a clash of personalities and ideologies. It showcases the efforts made by some leaders for reconciliation and the persistent obstacles that prevented a peaceful resolution, ultimately leading to a fractured Sangha.