Umaswami Shravakachar Pariksha

This document is a scholarly examination and critique of the Umaswami Shravakachar, a Jain text. The author, Jugalkishor Mukhtar, aims to demonstrate that this particular Shravakachar is not an authentic work of the renowned Jain Acharya Umaswami, the author of the universally accepted Tattvartha Sutra.

Here's a breakdown of the content:

Introduction and Context:

• The book is published by Veer Seva Mandir in Delhi and is the fourth in their "Prakirnak-Pustakmala" series.
• The author, Jugalkishor Mukhtar, is presented as a prolific writer and editor, known for his critical analyses of Jain scriptures.
• The preface details the history of Mukhtar's "Granth Pariksha" (Text Examination) series, which began with the critique of Umaswami Shravakachar over thirty-one years prior to its publication.
• The author highlights the importance of such critical examinations for discerning genuine Jain teachings from spurious or corrupted ones, emphasizing the need to protect the purity of the Jain faith from "crafty text creators."
• He notes that his earlier critical articles were well-received by some scholars and even translated into Marathi, indicating a societal need for such discernment.
• The preface also mentions critiques of other texts like Kundkund Shravakachar, Jinsen Trivarnachar, and Somsen Trivarnachar, and how these critical works have influenced scholarly discourse and led to the removal of questionable texts from educational curricula.
• The author expresses his intention to write this critical analysis to prevent the spread of misinformation and to guide the Jain community towards authentic spiritual knowledge.

The Core Argument: Umaswami Shravakachar is Not by Acharya Umaswami:

• The text begins by acknowledging the revered status of Acharya Umaswami, the author of the Tattvartha Sutra, and estimates his time period to be around the first century CE.
• The author states that while Umaswami is widely recognized for Tattvartha Sutra, his authorship of any other work is largely unknown.
• The primary question addressed is whether a separate Shravakachar attributed to Umaswami is genuine, or if it was authored by someone else.
• Mukhtar recounts how he obtained a copy of the Umaswami Shravakachar and began his examination.

Evidence of Forgery/Misattribution:

The author presents several key pieces of evidence to support his claim that the Umaswami Shravakachar is not by the original Acharya Umaswami:

1. Plagiarism and Interpolation: The most significant evidence is that a large number of verses in the Umaswami Shravakachar are directly lifted or slightly modified from works of later Jain Acharyas, some dating centuries after the estimated time of Acharya Umaswami.

   • Examples are provided with citations:
     • Verses from Purusharthasiddhyapaya by Acharya Amritchandra (10th century CE) are found in the Umaswami Shravakachar.
     • Verses from Yashastilaka by Acharya Somdev (11th century CE) are included.
     • Verses from the Shvetambara text Yogashastra by Acharya Hemchandra (13th century CE) are present.
     • Verses from the Shvetambara text Vivekavilas by Jinadatta Suri (13th century CE) are also found.
     • Verses from Dharmasangraha Shravakachar by Pandit Medhavi (15th century CE) are identified.
     • Verses from Manusamhita (Manu Smriti) and Vasunandi Shravakachar are also incorporated, with some being translated into Sanskrit.
   • The author argues that a great Acharya like Umaswami would not plagiarize from later authors, nor would he present borrowed verses as his own without attribution.

2. Contradictory Content:

   • Classification of Vows: The text mentions thirteen types of complete vows (sakala vrat) and twelve types of partial vows (vikala vrat). This contradicts the Tattvartha Sutra, which describes five great vows (mahavrata) as complete vows.
   • Number of Vows and Transgressions: The text states thirteen types of vows, while the Tattvartha Sutra describes five great vows and twelve vows for householders. The number of transgressions (atichara) is also stated as seventy, which doesn't align with the Tattvartha Sutra's sixty transgressions (or sixty-five if sallekhana is included). This inconsistency suggests the work is not from the original Acharya Umaswami.
   • Misclassification of Vows: The text incorrectly classifies the vow of limiting consumption and enjoyment (bhogopabhogaparimana) as a gunavrata (subsidiary vow) in one place and then as a shikshavrata (disciplinary vow) in another, indicating internal inconsistencies and borrowing from texts with different classifications.

3. Irrelevant and Contradictory Statements:

   • Flag on a Temple: A verse states that any worship, homa, or chanting performed in a temple without a flag is fruitless. The author finds no basis for this in Jain scriptures or logic.
   • Worn or Dirty Clothes: Another verse claims that performing charity, worship, penance, or study while wearing tattered, worn-out, or dirty clothes is futile. The author argues that the merit of actions depends on internal bhavas (intentions), not outward appearance, and this statement contradicts the principles of karma.
   • Flower Breaking: A verse states that breaking flowers like Champaka and Kamal into pieces or separating their buds is a sin equivalent to killing a muni. The author vehemently rejects this, finding it against Jain philosophy which distinguishes between the sin of harming one-sensed beings and the grave sin of harming highly evolved beings.

4. Linguistic and Stylistic Differences: The author notes that some verses, due to their distinct style and depth, appear different from the independently composed verses within the text, further suggesting they are borrowed.

5. Historical Context: The author posits that the Umaswami Shravakachar was likely created in the late 17th century or later, after the establishment of the Terapanth sect, to potentially influence or align with particular sectarian views. The prominent presence of a chapter on puja (worship) might be a clue to its origin or purpose.

Conclusion:

Based on the extensive analysis of borrowed verses, internal contradictions, and illogical statements, Jugalkishor Mukhtar concludes that the Umaswami Shravakachar is not the work of the renowned Acharya Umaswami. He identifies the author as a "minor, short-sighted, and petty-hearted individual" who likely lived in the 16th or 17th century.

Author's Motivation and Call to Action:

Mukhtar's motivation is to protect the integrity of Jain scriptures and to educate the Jain community. He encourages scholars to examine his findings and to make their own conclusions known to the public. He emphasizes the importance of preserving the reputation of ancient Acharyas and preventing the spread of fabricated texts that can mislead devotees. The publication of this critique is presented as a continuation of his efforts to uphold the truth and purity of the Jain faith.

In essence, the book is a critical textual analysis that serves as a cautionary tale against accepting texts at face value, even when attributed to revered figures, and highlights the importance of scholarly scrutiny in preserving religious traditions.