Upnishado Ka Jain Tattvagyan Par Prabhav

Here is a comprehensive summary in English of the provided Jain text, "Upnishado ka Jain Tattvagyan par Prabhav" by Anita Bothra:

This research paper, presented at a national seminar on "World Peace and Non-violence," examines the purported influence of Upanishadic philosophy on Jainology. The author, Dr. Anita Bothra, guided by Dr. Nalini Joshi, critically analyzes the prevailing assumption that Upanishadic thought significantly impacted Jain philosophy.

Core Premise and Counter-Arguments:

The paper begins by identifying three common assumptions among scholars of Jainology:

1. Separation and Chronology: Jain and Buddhist traditions are often presented as distinct from the Vedic/Brahmanical tradition, with an implicit suggestion that Jainism followed Buddhism.
2. Vedic Adaptability: The Vedic/Hindu tradition is seen as more adaptable to changing times, while Jain adaptations are often overlooked.
3. Direction of Influence: The prevailing assumption is that influence flows from Vedic/Hindu traditions to Jain traditions.

The paper's central thesis challenges the third assumption, specifically questioning whether Upanishadic thought was a primary source for Jain philosophical concepts. The author aims to critically review the idea that Jain philosophy, particularly its metaphysics, adopted significant ideas from the Upanishads, viewing them as authoritative texts.

Comparison of Style and Content:

The paper first explores stylistic similarities between ancient Jain Agamas (specifically the Acharyanga Sutra) and the Upanishads:

• Description of the Soul: Both texts describe the soul in negative terms, emphasizing its formless, intangible, and infinite nature. However, the author argues that such descriptions by enlightened individuals are bound to show similarities, and this does not necessarily prove influence.
• Guru-Disciple Dialogue: Both traditions frequently use the dialogue format (e.g., Yama-Nachiketa, Indra-Prajapati in Upanishads; Mahavir's teachings through Sudharma and Jambu, Keshi Kumar and King Pradesh in Jainism).
• Lyrical Prose: Both exhibit a rhythmic quality in their prose, even when not strictly poetry.
• Circular Sentence Construction: A recurring stylistic feature in both.
• Use of Analogies and Metaphors: Both employ extensive use of metaphors and analogies to explain complex philosophical concepts.
• Symbolic Interpretation of Rituals: Both reject literal ritualistic sacrifices, preferring symbolic, spiritual interpretations.

However, the author strongly cautions that these stylistic similarities are superficial and do not prove fundamental philosophical convergence or influence.

Key Philosophical Differences:

The paper then delves into significant doctrinal divergences:

1. Esotericism vs. Openness: The term "Upnishad" itself implies secrecy or hidden knowledge, evident in passages like "Hidden in the cave" or "The face of Truth is covered by a golden disk." Jain philosophy, on the other hand, is presented as analytical, transparent, and accessible to all, based on the six realities (shaddravya), leaving no room for mystery.

2. Reactionary Nature of Upanishads: The Upanishads are seen as a reaction against earlier Vedic ritualism (karma-kanda), emphasizing knowledge (jnana-kanda). Jain philosophy, particularly the teachings of Parshvanatha and Mahavira, is not considered reactionary. Its core concepts (six realities, nine principles, karma theory) are presented as original and not derived from Vedic sources. The paper notes that even the Rigveda shows no trace of Jain core principles.

3. Upanishadic Core Mantras vs. Jain Doctrine:

   • "Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma" (All this is Brahman): This suggests the all-pervasiveness of Brahman. From a Jain perspective, this concept lacks an explanation for the material world (matter/pudgala) and doesn't adequately account for individual rebirth and continuity. The Jain view emphasizes independent, distinct souls with their own bodies.
   • "Ayam Atma Brahma," "Aham Brahmasmi," "Tat Tvam Asi" (This self is Brahman, I am Brahman, That thou art): These mantras equate the individual soul with the supreme Brahman. Jainism posits the soul as distinct and independent. The concept of a supreme, all-pervasive "Paramatma" is absent. Instead, "Paramatma" refers to a soul that has achieved ultimate purity through self-effort. Jainism stresses the distinct, eternal existence of liberated souls. The Jain interpretation of "Tat Tvam Asi" focuses on recognizing the inherent potential for infinite knowledge and perception in all beings, fostering empathy and non-violence.

4. Cosmogony (Creation):

   • Upanishadic Diversity: The Upanishads present a wide variety of creation myths, attributing creation to various entities like Brahman, Hiranyagarbha, or through processes like tapas (penance). This diversity suggests imaginative speculation rather than a consistent doctrine.
   • Jain Indestructibility: Jainism fundamentally rejects the idea of creation or a creator. The universe is considered eternal, uncreated, and indestructible, composed of two eternal substances: soul (jiva) and matter (pudgala). The six categories of existence (shaddravya) are ever-present. The Jain text Sutrakritanga explicitly refutes theories of a creator, a world made from an egg, or that anything is created or destroyed.

5. Philosophical Differences on Specific Issues:

   • Truth (Satya): Upanishads mention a "golden disk" covering truth. Jainism posits that truth is multifaceted (anekantavada), and all realities are characterized by infinite attributes.
   • Brahman: The concept of Brahman as described in the Upanishads is not found in Jain scriptures.
   • Rebirth and Karma: While Upanishads mention karma and rebirth, Jainism has a highly systematized doctrine of karma, where every action (mental, verbal, physical) binds the soul with material karmic particles. The Upanishadic view on karma is considered general and aphoristic.
   • Ethics (Charitra): Jain ethics are integrated into the path to liberation through the three jewels (Right Faith, Right Knowledge, Right Conduct). The emphasis is on disciplined conduct, particularly for monks and laypeople (anuvrata, gunavrata). While Upanishads offer ethical advice (e.g., "Speak Truth, Follow Dharma," virtues like dana, dama, daya), the Jain framework of ethical discipline is distinct and not considered influenced by Upanishads.
   • Cosmology (Lokasamkalpana): Jainism meticulously details the three realms (upper, middle, lower), heavens, hells, and the movement of souls. Upanishads mention heavens, hells, and paths (Devayana, Pitryana) but lack the detailed structural framework of Jain cosmology. Crucially, Jainism completely rejects concepts like pitru (ancestors), pinda (ancestral offerings), and shraddha rituals, which are prevalent in Vedic literature.
   • Varna System: Jainism rejects the birth-based caste system, asserting that social status is determined by karma. Upanishads discuss the origin and hierarchy of varnas.

6. Well-Structured Jain Philosophy: Jain epistemology (knowledge systems - mati, shruta, avadhi, manahparyaya, kevala) and the theory of rebirth based on karma are highly organized. In contrast, Upanishadic discussions on knowledge are more scattered, using terms like jnana, vijnana, para-vidya, apara-vidya without extensive systematic elaboration.

Conclusion:

The paper concludes that while the Upanishads and Jain Agamas share some stylistic similarities and both address the nature of the soul and the ultimate goal of liberation, there are profound philosophical and doctrinal differences. The prevailing assumption of Upanishadic influence on Jain philosophy is largely unsubstantiated. Jainism, as an ancient tradition of the Shramana lineage, developed independently with its own original philosophical and ethical frameworks. The author suggests that a more appropriate comparison for the Upanishads might be with Jain texts like Rishibhashita, which preserve the teachings of various sages, some of whom had connections to Vedic traditions. Ultimately, the paper argues that Jain philosophy, with its emphasis on analytical reasoning, independent existence of souls, rejection of a creator, and a unique doctrine of karma, stands distinct from Upanishadic thought.