Yeh Ek Naya Pagalpan

Here is a comprehensive summary in English of the provided Jain text, "Yeh Ek Naya Pagalpan" (This is a New Madness) by Amarmuni:

This text, "Yeh Ek Naya Pagalpan," authored by Amarmuni, critiques a concerning trend within the Jain community, particularly among the Sthanakvasi sect. The author argues that a new form of religious fanaticism or "madness" is emerging, reaching the limits of mental derangement in the name of religion.

The core of this "madness," according to Amarmuni, is the exclusionary policy adopted by some religious leaders within the Sthanakvasi community. These leaders refuse to allow anyone other than their own approved monks and nuns to stay in Jain monasteries (Sthanaks, Upashrayas). This is justified by labeling any deviation from traditional practices, such as the adoption of vehicles (like cars or airplanes) or other adaptations made by progressive thinkers to suit the modern era, as sinful.

Amarmuni contends that this stance is hypocritical. He points out that many revered figures within their own tradition have made significant changes to their traditional conduct. These leaders are deeply entangled in worldly affairs like "arambh" (commencement of activities involving potential harm) and "parigrah" (possessions). They employ paid scholars to teach their disciples, manage correspondence, and report on their activities. They also construct numerous Sthanaks and institutions and engage in ostentatious displays during initiations. They use expensive shawls and, in their pilgrimages (vihar), often transgress scriptural guidelines, either directly or indirectly. They have been using vehicles like palanquins, wheelchairs, and rickshaws for years, and even cars and airplanes under the guise of exceptions for their frail bodies.

Despite these obvious and extensive personal changes, Amarmuni criticizes the propagation of the false belief among blind devotees that they are strictly adhering to every letter of the scriptures. He uses the idiom, "गिर पड़े फिर भी टांग ऊँची" (fell down but still kept the leg raised), to describe this audacity. He notes that all these individuals are welcomed into the Upashrayas. Disturbingly, some of these very figures have had stories of their immoral conduct published in newspapers, yet they are still revered simply because they belong to the sect.

In contrast, Amarmuni argues, when individuals who make useful adaptations to their practices for the sake of religious propagation or to align with modern social consciousness make some changes, they are accused of destroying religion by these same leaders.

The author then raises serious concerns about the current state of Sthanaks themselves. He describes them as becoming centers of filth and unhygienic conditions due to unscriptural disposal of bodily waste. This is why, he notes, in newer suburbs of cities like Mumbai, other communities are preventing the construction of Sthanaks, citing that monks and nuns spread dirt. He emphasizes that this is not an unsubstantiated claim, as it has been reported in the Gujarati Jain Prakash newspaper.

Furthermore, Amarmuni highlights the contradiction in the Sthanakvasi community claiming to be against idol worship (jad puja) while being fanatically attached to the sanctity of brick-and-stone structures called Sthanaks. He points out that during festivals, even meat-eaters and alcoholics are warmly invited and honored in these sacred spaces.

He also makes a stark statement that truly detached monks (nirgranth sadhus) should not even stay in such Upashrayas, as they are considered "audeshik" (specifically for the purpose of monks) for them. Regardless of any attempts to deny it, it is clear that these structures are built for monks, and often monks themselves collect donations to build them, which, from a doctrinal perspective, makes them "anachari" (those who act against prescribed conduct). He acknowledges that this truth is bitter but necessary.

Amarmuni criticizes this rigid exclusivity by contrasting it with the practices of Jain monks who, during their travels, stay in monasteries, temples, and ashrams of Vaishnav and other sects. These hosts, even though they consider Jainism and Jain monks to be atheistic or following a false path (mithya-drushti), welcome Jain monks with respect and offer them alms. However, Amarmuni questions why the Sthanakvasi community does not extend this courtesy even to monks of other Jain traditions (like Svetambara-Digambara) or to those within their own Sthanakvasi tradition who advocate for thought reform.

He then poses a crucial question: "Where is your anekant?" (the Jain principle of manifold perspectives). He asks who is more liberal – the Vaishnavs or the Jains, who is more humanitarian, and who truly upholds the standards of human civilization. He concludes that they have no heartfelt answers.

Amarmuni asserts that this exclusionary behavior is merely a blatant display of possessiveness (parigrahvad) and sectarian pride (sampradayvad). He believes that such pride has a very short lifespan in this changing era. He expresses his astonishment that even thoughtful individuals like Mr. M.J. Desai claim with pride in their letters their refusal to allow reformist monks and nuns to stay in their Upashrayas. He questions if this is truly befitting conduct in the current age. He suggests that such rigidity does not harm the progressive monks but rather reflects their own narrow-mindedness. He advises them to act with more understanding.

Drawing upon scriptural studies (Agam, Niryukti, Bhashya, Churni), Amarmuni states that monks should not reside in villages or towns but rather in forests, gardens, chaityas, caves, or temples outside these areas. If an exception is made, it should be for only one night in a village and five nights in a town. He notes that this principle is not exclusive to Jain scriptures but is also found in Vedic traditions, citing authorities like Maharishi Patanjali and other dharma-sutra and smriti writers. He provides an example of Swami Vivekananda refusing to stay longer than prescribed in a town, emphasizing that even for virtuous monks, staying in towns is restricted.

In his closing remarks, Amarmuni, in his 82nd year, states that he has no personal interest in sectarian disputes. However, he feels compelled by truth to counter the illusions spread in the name of religion and truth. He believes that condemnation or praise holds no meaning for truth. He anticipates that his writings will provoke some people to write and publish their biased opinions, but he is unconcerned by this, as it reflects their mindset and actions. He vows to continue challenging untruth and hypocrisy until his last breath, as long as life and nature permit. He concludes by quoting Lord Mahavir, "Saccham khagavam" – Truth is God. Maintaining the prestige of truth is the worship of truth, and this should be the lifelong endeavor of a truth-seeker.