Vir Paramparanu Akhand Pratinidhitva

Here is a comprehensive summary of the Jain text "Vir Paramparanu Akhand Pratinidhitva" by Sukhlal Sanghavi, based on the provided pages:

The article "Vir Paramparanu Akhand Pratinidhitva" (Unbroken Representation of the Vir Tradition) by Sukhlal Sanghavi, published in "Z_Darshan_ane_Chintan_Part_2," delves into which of the major Jain traditions (Śvetāmbara, Digambara, and Sthānakavāsī) has best preserved the unbroken representation of Lord Mahavir's teachings. Sanghavi acknowledges that the discussion of issues like mūhopatti (mouth cloth) and idol worship, which he personally finds less crucial to the core teachings, has become less engaging and might not interest a broader audience. Instead, he focuses on a historically significant and universally relevant point: the unbroken representation of the Vir tradition.

Sanghavi begins by addressing the potential for religious sentiments to become sectarian, obscuring truth and fearlessness. He admits the risk of his analysis being perceived through a sectarian lens, especially given the contemporary tendency to promote sectarian views under the guise of historical inquiry. However, he expresses confidence that those with an unbiased, scholarly, and historical perspective will find his discussion free from sectarian bias.

The author defines the "Vir tradition" not just as the teachings of Lord Mahavir but as a continuation of a pre-Mahavir Jain tradition that Mahavir himself assimilated, refined, and adapted. He argues that this tradition, built over centuries, has survived in various forms. The central question he poses is: Which of the Jain traditions, despite their historical branches and current existence, has most continuously and authentically preserved the representation of the Vir tradition?

Based on his comparative and historical reading and contemplation of the scriptures and practices of the three traditions, Sanghavi concludes that the Śvetāmbara tradition has preserved the unbroken representation of the Vir tradition more completely and accurately than the other two. He intends to support this assertion by examining three aspects: conduct (ācāra), worship (upāsanā), and scriptures (śāstra).

1. Conduct (Ācāra): Sanghavi states that all three traditions have equally upheld the principle of ahiṃsā (non-violence) in their practical propagation. However, he asserts that his argument is based on the principle of anekānta (multi-sidedness), the essence and body of ahiṃsā. While all traditions claim adherence to anekānta, Sanghavi probes where this perspective is most fully embodied in practice, worship, and scriptures. He argues that in philosophical debates and establishing their views against other philosophical schools, all three traditions equally demonstrate anekānta. However, when examining ācāra, particularly the conduct of monks, and specifically the issue of clothing (vastrācāra), a clearer picture emerges.

He contends that both clothed (sāchela) and unclothed (achēla) practices had a place in Lord Mahavir's life and tradition. While nudity (achēla-dharma), central to the Digambara tradition, is indeed a valuable aspect of Lord Vir's life and tradition, Sanghavi emphasizes Mahavir's liberal and practical anekānta perspective. He believes that Mahavir, in his wisdom, would not have enforced absolute nudity as the sole path to religious propagation, as it would have hindered the acceptance of his teachings. Instead, Mahavir likely allowed for limited exceptions regarding clothing and possessions for the welfare and accessibility of his Dharma.

Sanghavi argues that the Digambara tradition, by making nudity an absolute condition for a true monk, prioritizes one aspect of Mahavir's teachings while neglecting the other, thus violating the principle of anekānta. Conversely, the Śvetāmbara and Sthānakavāsī traditions, while accepting clothed monks, do not disregard or disrespect the principle of nudity. Instead, they acknowledge the primacy of nudity for true monks while recognizing the importance of clothed conduct for specific individuals. Therefore, in the matter of clothing, Sanghavi concludes that the Digambara tradition has failed to uphold anekānta, while the other two have maintained it in their thought and practice. He cites the Ācārāṅga Sūtra as evidence, containing both clothed and unclothed principles without suggesting one came after the other, and argues that Mahavir himself accepted both.

2. Worship (Upāsanā): Sanghavi identifies idol worship as an important element within the Vir tradition. He considers the Sthānakavāsī tradition excluded from this aspect because they reject any form of idol worship. Therefore, he focuses on the Śvetāmbara and Digambara traditions. He acknowledges that the Digambara tradition's worship of nude idols is perhaps more fitting and unpretentious for the worship of the detached and liberated. However, he deems the Digambara tradition's stance on this too absolute.

He notes that the Śvetāmbara tradition has not excluded nude idol worship from its practices or beliefs. For a long time, nude idols have existed and been worshipped in Śvetāmbara temples and pilgrimage sites. While the Śvetāmbara tradition also incorporates clothed and adorned idols, and the emphasis on these has increased with sectarian differences, the continued presence and acceptance of nude idols from ancient times (e.g., from Mathura) indicate that the Śvetāmbara tradition has valued nude idols in spiritual worship.

In contrast, Digambara temples and pilgrimage sites strictly exclude any idol that is not nude. Their scriptures also exclusively support nude idols, shaping the Digambara mindset to believe that only nude idols are worthy of worship. The Śvetāmbara tradition, however, has historically maintained a more liberal approach, not becoming as absolute as the Digambaras regarding the form of the idol. Sanghavi concedes that in recent centuries, some Śvetāmbara practices have become reactive, leaning towards the opposite extreme of the Digambaras. He believes that both nude and nearly nude idols are conducive to worship, and the absolute insistence on nude idols breaks the representation of the Vir tradition by excluding the Śvetāmbara conception. The Śvetāmbara conception, on the other hand, can accommodate the Digambara one-sided belief.

3. Scriptures (Śāstra): This is presented as the most crucial aspect. All three traditions have their own scriptures. The Sthānakavāsī and Śvetāmbara traditions share some common scriptural literature (āgamic literature), which the Digambara tradition rejects, claiming the original scriptures were lost before being documented. The Digambaras then rely on scriptures compiled from the 2nd century CE onwards according to their tradition.

Sanghavi questions why, if the Digambara tradition preserved its own later scriptures, it did not preserve the original āgamic literature. He dismisses the idea that the destructive forces that affected the original scriptures did not impact the Digambaras' later writings. He argues that such selective destruction of only Jain scriptures, while leaving Brahminical and Buddhist literature unaffected, is historically improbable and partisan.

Therefore, Sanghavi concludes that the original scriptures of the Vir tradition have not been destroyed but have survived unbroken, with the Śvetāmbara and Sthānakavāsī traditions inheriting this legacy. He acknowledges that the Sthānakavāsī tradition possesses some original āgamic literature, but it is like a root without branches or fruits, and even that root is not intact. The Śvetāmbara tradition's scriptural legacy is more extensive, authentic, and richer than the Digambara tradition's, and more so than the Sthānakavāsī tradition's.

He criticizes the Sthānakavāsī tradition for selecting only certain āgamas and for their rejection of the niyukti and other supporting texts vital for the continuous development of āgamic literature and the Vir tradition. Their ultimate failure, he states, lies in the decline of philosophical contemplation, which stemmed from their emphasis on ritualistic practices. While other traditions engaged in profound philosophical discourse during that era, the Sthānakavāsī tradition made no significant contribution to philosophical or logical literature. This, he concludes, disqualifies the Sthānakavāsī tradition from holding an unbroken representation of the Vir tradition.

The remaining discussion focuses on the Digambara and Śvetāmbara traditions in relation to scriptures. Sanghavi reiterates that the Digambara tradition's neglect and rejection of original āgamic literature led to the loss of not only scholarly knowledge but also a significant portion of the Vir tradition's ancestral practices and thoughts. He highlights that the Digambaras lost the opportunity to preserve, compile, and propagate the flow of their tradition's literature. While acknowledging the valuable philosophical, logical, and other literature produced by respected Digambara scholars in the medieval period, Sanghavi states that if the Digambara tradition had preserved and explained the āgamic and associated literature, their scholars would have made an even greater contribution to Indian and Jain literature.

From a historical perspective, Sanghavi asserts that any unbroken representation of the Vir tradition found in scriptures today is attributable to the Śvetāmbara tradition. He believes that the Śvetāmbara pañcāṅgī (five-part) literature contains ample material that could have been beneficial to the Digambara tradition. He suggests that faced with differing viewpoints, the Digambaras could have engaged in debate and interpretation of the Śvetāmbara scriptures, similar to how Brahminical and Buddhist traditions have interpreted shared texts or how different interpretations of a single text exist. Alternatively, they could have declared certain passages as apocryphal, as Swami Dayananda did with some portions of scriptures, thereby preserving the core pañcāṅgī literature.

The author criticizes the Digambara tradition's mindset as being one-sided, lacking the intellectual curiosity and scholarly inclination to engage with literature like the pañcāṅgī. In contrast, the Śvetāmbara mindset has historically been more liberal, as evidenced by their literary creations. He notes the absence of any Digambara scholar writing about Brahminical or Buddhist texts, or even Śvetāmbara āgamic or philosophical literature. Conversely, many Śvetāmbara scholars have written respectful and significant commentaries on Digambara texts, despite their strong refutations. Furthermore, the Digambara tradition's approach to book collection has historically been more restrictive than the Śvetāmbara tradition's.

Sanghavi clarifies that he is not presenting this to elevate one tradition or diminish another. His aim is one of equanimity, acknowledging shortcomings without contempt. He concludes by urging the Sthānakavāsī tradition to rectify its past mistakes. He also implores discerning and fearless Digambara scholars to move beyond their inherited mindset, to observe the āgamic and pañcāṅgī literature of the Śvetāmbara tradition, which more accurately represents the Vir tradition, and to integrate it with their own literature or use it to supplement their own tradition. Failure to do so, he warns, will limit their role in the broader sphere of the Vir tradition and their reputation among scholars and historians.

Finally, Sanghavi reflects on Śrīmad Vijayānandasūriśvara, suggesting that his inquisitive mind was not satisfied with the limited āgamic literature of the Sthānakavāsī tradition. He posits that perhaps the Sūri felt a calling towards the tradition that more faithfully represented the Vir tradition, leading him to study the entirety of Jain literature. He concludes by stating that while the Śvetāmbara tradition is closer to the Vir tradition in conduct, worship, and scriptures, any Śvetāmbara individual who becomes arrogant or dismissive of other traditions due to this perceived superiority is mistaken. He notes that even the Śvetāmbara tradition's scholarly pursuits are somewhat one-sided and incomplete, lacking a comprehensive understanding of Brahminical and Buddhist traditions. He urges current Śvetāmbara scholars to build upon the legacy of scholars like Ātmārāmaji, utilizing contemporary resources to develop their tradition in a manner befitting the present age.