Vartaman Sadhu Aur Navin Manas

Here is a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Vartaman Sadhu aur Navin Manas" by Sukhlal Sanghavi, in English:

Vartaman Sadhu aur Navin Manas (The Present Ascetic and the New Mindset) by Sukhlal Sanghavi, explores the growing dichotomy within Jain society, particularly between traditional ascetics (sadhus) and the younger generation influenced by modern education and thought. The author draws parallels with historical shifts in Europe and the broader Indian society to illustrate the challenges faced by Jainism in adapting to contemporary times.

The European Parallel and the Indian Context: The text begins by referencing the scientific revolution in Europe, where figures like Galileo and Bruno challenged established religious doctrines. The resistance came from the Pope and religious leaders who found their authority threatened by new ideas. Eventually, to preserve their existence, religious institutions in Europe narrowed their scope, limiting their influence to religious discourse and minimal service, rather than attempting to guide the new intellectual currents.

The author notes that a similar dynamic is now unfolding in India, especially within the Jain community. He uses the example of the Vedic (Brahmanical) society, where the advent of modern education caused upheaval. While traditional scholars (pandits) held sway due to scriptures and tradition, their own educated descendants challenged them, leading to the formation of new reformist movements like Brahmasamaj, Devsamaj, and Aryasamaj. Figures like Swami Vivekananda and Ramatirtha recognized the evolving mindset of educated Hindus and worked to guide them sympathetically. This allowed the new generation to embrace educational and intellectual freedom, even amidst staunch traditionalists. The author highlights that this openness in Hinduism has allowed for the birth of influential individuals who challenge old norms without facing outright condemnation from traditional scholars. This openness is attributed to the presence of individuals within the society who could recognize, lead, and empathize with the new mindset.

The Jain Society's Stagnation: In contrast, the Jain society has experienced the influx of modern education more gradually over the last fifty years. This has led to a conflict between the "old mindset," which the author identifies primarily with the ascetics, and the "new mindset" of the educated laity. While some conservative householders exist, the ascetics have historically held the reins, as tradition dictated that they were superior in education and renunciation. Householders were educated primarily for business, while spiritual knowledge and renunciation were seen as the domain of ascetics. This led to householders' lives being guided by ascetics, with ascetics being the sole source of true counsel in matters of thought.

When new situations arose, and traditionalists became agitated, the ascetics' mindset, consciously or unconsciously, fueled or supported this unrest. If a capable ascetic had offered wise counsel to the traditionalists, the agitation might have been resolved. However, due to ignorance, narrow-mindedness, fear of status, or other reasons, ascetics often fail to grasp the implications of new education and circumstances. Their silence or indifference is interpreted by their followers as tacit disapproval of new ideas or circumstances, leading the laity to confront their own progressive children. If influential ascetics actively oppose, it further exacerbates the situation.

Differences within Jainism: The author specifically points to the Śvetāmbara Mūrtipūjaka (Śvetāmbara idol-worshippers) as exhibiting this stagnation in their ascetics. He notes that the Digambara community, while having some traditionalist monks and scholars who hinder progress, faces a less pronounced conflict due to the lesser influence and undue interference of their ascetics and scholars compared to the Śvetāmbaras.

The Sthānakavāsī (temple-less) community, however, is different. Their ascetics have very little influence in the practical affairs of householders. While respected and supported, if ascetics were to interfere in householders' lives, their own ability to live as ascetics would be threatened. Although the Sthānakavāsī ascetics may not have contributed as much to the development of householder life as their Śvetāmbara counterparts, they have also not created as many obstacles. The conflict between old and new mindsets exists in the Sthānakavāsī community too, but it is not driven by ascetics and is resolved internally within families.

Historical Context of Conflict: Looking back through centuries, the author finds no historical instances of direct conflict between ascetics and householders, particularly regarding education and values, comparable to the present. Past conflicts were primarily between different monastic orders (gacchas), with householders acting as supporters of their respective monastic leaders. The ascetics, being bound by non-violence, would engage in intellectual battles, with householders acting as their "soldiers." However, there were no direct confrontations between householders and ascetics regarding differing opinions or practices.

The Ascetics' Perspective and Education: In ancient times, education was not disparate between ascetics and householders. Householders followed ascetics in religious education. Ascetics' scriptures were the ultimate authority, and their teachings were the basis of householders' practice and learning. Jain history, unlike Vedic history which produced prominent householder scholars, has not produced any householder Jain scholars who matched the stature of renowned ascetics. This is not due to a lack of intellect in householders but because they were not admitted to the same level of education and spiritual training as ascetics. They focused on their spiritual duty and supported the prestige of ascetics, leading them to passively support monastic factions rather than engaging in independent thought.

The Root Cause of Conflict: Differing Education: The fundamental reason for the vast chasm between the ascetics' mindset and the newly educated laity is the difference in their education. The author emphasizes the adage, "As the food, so the mind," suggesting that "As the education, so the mind" is a more profound principle. Modern education has the power to reshape minds, even those steeped in ancient traditions.

Ascetics receive a specific type of education. Their teachers are also ascetics with similar mindsets, often scholars who remain rooted in the 12th or 16th-century intellectual landscape. The curriculum for ascetics prioritizes ritualistic formulas, presented as divinely ordained and unalterable. This education instills a sense of superiority, devaluing other rituals and even those of neighboring monastic lineages.

The second subject is religion and philosophy. Ascetics are taught that their religion is complete and requires no additions. They are encouraged to find fault with other religions to affirm their own superiority. Jain literature, even if symbolic or mythical, is treated as historical fact. Their geography includes inaccessible realms, and their philosophy is presented as unchanged for two thousand years, with little acknowledgment of external philosophical influences. Despite the presence of Buddhist and Brahmanical philosophical discussions in early Jain texts, later philosophical developments in Indian thought are largely absent from Jain scholarly works, with exceptions like Yashovijayji. Ascetics believe their philosophical study is comprehensive, neglecting the study of foundational Indian philosophical systems like Purvamimamsa and Uttarimimamsa. While subjects like language, grammar, and poetry are taught, they lack modern elements. Anekanthavada (the doctrine of manifold aspects) is discussed but not truly lived. Science is only embraced when it supports their views, history is valued only when it aligns with their beliefs, and logical freedom is exercised only to refute opposing viewpoints. Science, history, logic, and comparative studies lack an impartial place in their education.

Modern Education: Modern education, established in colleges and universities, has brought about a complete transformation in subjects, methods, and teachers. Science is taught based on truth, without bias. History and geography are meticulously studied and corrected. Languages and poetry are approached with a broad comparative perspective. The new education emphasizes scientific verification, impartial historical perspective, and liberal comparative methods. Modern educators are not bound to cater to traditional mindsets or familial traditions like the often subservient scholars of the past.

Environment and Libraries: The environments and libraries also differ vastly. The highest aspiration for ascetic environment is a modest hall in a city, with the company of a few indifferent ascetics, lacking the intellectual stimulation of a professor. Their libraries contain similar types of literature. In contrast, the realm of modern education is vibrant, filled with the ideas of professors engaged in profound and extensive studies, and libraries stocked with books offering fresh perspectives.

Key Differences: Two significant barriers exist between ascetic and modern education:

1. Fear and Lack of Openness: Ascetics, raised within sectarian boundaries, are naturally fearful. They hesitate to express anything contrary to their tradition, much like a veiled woman experiencing discomfort in open air. Modern education students, however, are free from this fear and can openly express their thoughts.
2. Exposure to the Global: Modernly educated youth have been exposed to diverse cultures both within India and abroad. Travel to Europe and America, witnessing vastness, interacting with different peoples, and experiencing foreign educational institutions, laboratories, and libraries, helps them break through ingrained, age-old constraints and view everything with a new perspective.

The Inevitable Earthquake: The author concludes that the current societal "earthquake" is natural and inevitable, given the stark differences in the formation of the traditional ascetic mindset and the newly educated generation.

Resolving the Crisis: To end this crisis, either the present and future generations must abandon the doors of new education and erase its influences, or the ascetic class must broaden its narrow vision and enter the realm of new education. Alternatively, if Śvetāmbara ascetics cease to interfere in the thoughts and practices of the new generation, even while continuing their old educational system, the crisis might abate. This necessitates either ascetics changing their ways, like European popes and priests, or the new generation permanently closing the doors to free knowledge.

The Path Forward: The author questions whether either side will yield. He believes that no one will willingly give up opportunities for modern education, which is essential for survival in the present life. He doubts that the ascetic class, which has historically ruled over householders through inherited spiritual wealth and undue authority, will intelligently evolve their mindset to suit the new era.

Therefore, the crucial question arises: who can be the guide for the new mindset? The author posits that it is impossible for the current ascetic class, with their limited and even more constricted vision, to guide the new mindset, which is fundamentally different. He states that it is unlikely to see ascetics like Vivekananda or Ramakrishna emerge from the present monastic system.

Thus, the only remaining option is for the newly educated generation to take the reins of their own minds. The author believes this is achievable, as even oppressed communities are striving for self-upliftment. Before taking control, the new generation should solidify fundamental principles, create programs accordingly, and prepare for future self-governance by taking on social responsibilities, viewing collective issues from a personal benefit perspective, and gathering strength through self-rule and self-control.

The text is presented as a "Paryushan Vyākhyānamālā" (a series of lectures during Paryushan festival), with the translation by Nihalchand Parekh from Bombay.