संवत्सरी : अहेतुक उलझन
Summary
The text discusses the Jain festival of Paryushana or Samvatsari, emphasizing forgiveness and tolerance. It argues for a unified date for the festival across the Jain community, especially during the 26th birth centenary year of Lord Mahavira. The author, Acharya Shri Mahapragya, addresses confusions and presents solutions. The text traces the history of the festival, noting that the term "Samvatsari" was not used in the Agam era; the original name was "Paryushana." According to the Agams, monks who did not observe Paryushana were subject to penance. Lord Mahavira observed Paryushana after 50 days of the rainy season, and later texts mention 70 days. In the ancient tradition, Paryushana was established from Ashadha Purnima to Bhadrapada Shukla Panchami. The current tradition uses "Samvatsari" for the main day and "Paryushana" for the preceding days. The Shwetambar tradition observes an eight-day Paryushana ending with Samvatsari, while the Digambar tradition observes a ten-day festival starting on Bhadrapada Shukla Panchami. The text identifies four main problems: two Shravan months, two Bhadrapad months, the Chaturthi vs. Panchami tithi, and the Udaya tithi vs. Ghadia tithi. It suggests that an extra month should not be counted, and that the festival should be observed in the second Bhadrapad month if there are two. Regarding the tithi, the text argues that Udaya tithi (sunrise-based) should be used, as it is for other rituals. It mentions efforts to unify the festival, including a 1986 proposal in Mumbai, which was accepted by some but later rejected by the Shraman Sangh, though the Terapanth sect still follows it. The text concludes that changing the tradition is permissible,
Conclusion
The document’s analysis of the Samvatsari festival reveals that the core issue is not doctrinal but one of tradition and calendar interpretation. The implications are clear: the current fragmentation, driven by adherence to different lunar calculations and historical precedents, undermines the festival’s intended message of universal forgiveness and unity. The outcome of this study points to a viable path forward, as demonstrated by the 1986 Mumbai proposal, which achieved broad consensus on a single date based on the lunar day of Bhadrapada Shukla Panchami. The key takeaway is that a unified observance is achievable if the community prioritizes harmony over rigid tradition. This would not only resolve the “unnecessary confusion” but also strengthen the festival’s spiritual and social impact, making it a true celebration of collective forgiveness and a powerful symbol of Jain unity.