 Yes, so we might start our first session. So for the next session, I'm very happy to welcome here Shin Fujinaka from Iaconojo in Miyazaki, who will be talking about pandit and monks in giant studies. So thank you. Thank you very much, Marie, and good afternoon, all of the audience. Today I'm going to talk about the pandit and monks in giant studies. Until the end of 19th century, giant has been less known in the field of Indonesia, which was mainly carried out in Europe. But in the first two decades of the next century, it became the more popular mainly because of increasing publication of giant texts from India. Though some of them are published sporadically at various places in India, where organized society or group were main sources of them. And editor or compiler of such texts were mainly monks and pandit, not professor in university. Their works have been highly appreciated among the scholars all over the world because of the importance of the original texts themselves and excellent method of editing. These pandit and monks had no so-called regular academic education because besides with some exceptions, most of them had no English literacy. Here, I'd like to explore how and why they were able to accomplish that brilliant and lasting achievement. Though there have been many giant scholars and pandit. Today I choose three among of them. Namely, Pandit Malvaniya and Pandit Mahendra Kumar and Muni Jammu Bihar. And mainly I'll talk about Mahendra Kumar. First, I'd like to emphasize that among the common future which made them brilliant in the field of Indonesia, the most important factor is, to my knowledge, their inborn intelligence or in other words, that they were genius. Personally, I had a good chance to have a lesson of giant texts from Malvaniya as well as Jammu Bihar. Very deep impression of their high intelligence, which I received from them many times still remain within me. Many of the foreigners, I mean the non-Indian scholars, who had taken lessons on giant or Buddhist texts from them, must have similar impression as I have. Because Mahendra Kumar died premature death in his 14, I had no chance to meet him, but I can understand his inborn intelligence from the fact that he started his academic career at Seared by the giant Mahabirah Vidyara Vanarasi in 1930. At that time, he was only 19 or 20. Can you imagine that just a BA student teaches at university or college? Now, let us discuss the method of attitude of scholarship and editing. First, to edit certain work, they do not use single manuscript, but they try to correct manuscripts as many as possible and utilizing them, pandits and monks determine the most suitable reading and show variant readings in footnotes. For example, take the Gynothalic version of Yasho Vidyara edited by pandits Skrasangabi and Malvaniya and Mahendra Kumar and published in 1939 as the single Gynothalic series number eight, this one. And editing this work, they use the three manuscripts and one printed edition in the introduction of this book. The editor mentions the places of the institute to which manuscripts belong to and detailed information of them. Here you can see the description about the manuscripts. From here, they describe the manuscripts which they use. Before our pandits, general speaking, the Indian editor used only one manuscript to edit a work, or even if they use many ones, they did not refer to that. Let's have a look at Agama Udaya Semitic series, which is published in the, published, its first number in 1919. This is the first edition, first one in the general Agama Udaya Semitic. There's no mention of manuscripts. They just started the text. It must be noted here that Muni Jamuji edited Heima Chandrath's Yoga Shastra twice, the first during 1977 through 1986. The second is 2009. For the first edition, he was able to utilize only two manuscripts and one printed edition. But after two decades, the eight were available at his hand. However, it should be noticed here, even if there are plenty of good manuscripts available, a good edition does not come out automatically. Editor with excellent intelligence can determine the preferable reading of a sentence or a phrase. Anyway, our pandit maintained this attitude through their academic life. But we can't conclude that they were first Indian scholars adopted this method. Moreover, it is sure that they did not innovate this. Most probably, they adopted this from the European Indies like Hermann Jacobi, who edited Agama Archaranga, besides many other gene works, using plural manuscripts and published it in 1882. Such a method of editing naturally leads to preparing various footnotes. First, our pandit and Muni note different readings of words or phrases in the text. And then, they also give the explanation of synonym or difficult words. This is a kind of explanation, must be coined by them because, prior to them, Jain has a long history of such a method called tipana or tabo, a kind of growth in the Western tradition. Here you can see in this Agama Archaranga series, Vibhara or tipana just goes with the original word or phrase. What shows our pandit and Muni's excellent ability in terms of the footnotes is reference to the idea of terms that may have a relationship with word or phrase in the body of text. In the similar manner, they note the source of quotation in the body in square brackets and if they identified and if they cannot identify, they put only square brackets. This kind of reference may be regarded as one of commentary, but making this, they do not put their opinion or understanding of the portion of body, but just show their knowledge to make addition more useful. And such work is only possible to the scholar who read the various texts of Jainism as well as those of Buddhism and Hinduism and who has a good memory. Most of the texts edited by our pandit and Muni's contain various and useful appendix or parishtha at the end of the text. Usually such appendix begin with an analytical list of the verse or sutra in the body. To prepare this kind of list is, as you can imagine, not difficult. But point is, they realize the importance of such a list for our research. Actually, many scholars find it's very useful, especially when the body of text contains hundreds and thousands of verses or sutras. We are not sure whether the pandit innovated this kind of list or such and had been compiled before them in India or in Western world. A grocery or concordance had been compiled and made a part of index of texts even in India before them, but alphabetical list of verses or sutras are very rare in the early decades of 20th century. What makes us most surprised among the appendix is the list of quotations in the text. As mentioned before, the source of quotations is usually noted within the square bracket or in footnotes. Collection of such notes in the form of a list of quotations with its origin is enough to realize the high intelligence and wide reading of the editors. Moreover, I never come across such a list before them, even if they were, only few scholars with extent ability can prepare it. So the list of quotations with origin is a mark of brilliant editor. Now, let us focus pandit Mahendra Kumar and work edited by him. He must be less known than Marvaniya and Jhambu Vijay because of several reasons. The first one is the fact he belonged to the Digambara and the second is that he was Hindi speaker with little English ability. The third, the work he edited are most on logic or Niyaya, not Agamas. But he should be more appreciated among the giants as well as researchers on journalism. However, looking at his life, we'll see how Mahendra Kumar realized the methods mentioned above. Born in Kurai near Sargarh, Madhya Pradesh in 1911, he took his elementary education at Jain Partishara, located at Bina. After that, he joined Han Khamchand Jain Mahabind Araya in all where he passed the examination in Niyaya Tilt and Shastri in 1929. Next year, he was appointed as Professor of Philosophy Seadabad Mahabind Vidya Araya of Anarasi. He took there for 13 years and got the title of Niyaya Acharya. During this period, he edited several texts. He did some of them with co-editors as mentioned above. After short stay in Bombay, he returned to the Anarasi for founding project of Bharatiya Jnana Pit, which was founded in 1944. By the request of Pandit Malvaniya to the university authorities, he was appointed as a Professor for Buddhism of BHU in 1949 and taught until 1959, when he passed away. During his academic career of about 30 years, he edited about 10 Jain texts written in Sanskrit. As mentioned before, most of them are work on logic or Niyaya, except the publication of Darshan Samut. In independent writing, we have only one book titled Jain Darshan published in 1955 as a volume of Sri Ganesh Prasad Varni Jain Granthamala in Anarasi. Besides this, he contributes several articles in Hindi for magazine. Here is the list of texts in chronological order. He edited to my knowledge, he edited 10 works. All of them show his superior intelligence, but we have no time to check all one by one here. So let us take a philosophical text edited by him to compare with previous one. Pramaya Kamala Maltanda or Prabha Chandra is a commentary on Parikusha Mukka Sutra of Manike Nandin. The latter is a fundamental text of Jain Niyaya belonging to Digambaras. This text was, this text with commentary was edited by Banshidar and published in 1912 in Bombay by famous publisher Nirnaya Sagar. Here you can see the name of publisher. Mahandakumar re-edited it by the suggestion of Pandit Sikral Sangabi and Mr. K. Jain. The same publisher published this new edition with introduction and appendixes in 1941, as we, which we'll see afterwards. Now, let us have a look at the first edition, I mean this edition. This was, as you can see, this was printed in a traditional 40th style, forward or forward. The board got follows to the title page, this is the title page and this is forward. And this cover only three pages in this, two authors and related Jain philosophers such as Samantabhadra and Akalankas are referred to. Here you can see the name of three Samantabhadra and Manike Nandin. And here you can see the name of Prabha Chandra. Just three pages and it starts here as a text with a comment, this is the Pramaya Kamala Marathana. And in this forward, we can find any difference to the manuscripts the editor might have used. The body of text starts after this, the context and we see figure in Devanagari on the upper part of the line. You can see the number one, two, three and so on. And here we can see the tipana to correspond the number here, here in the tipana of this part. This tipana or gloss whose author is unknown to me, this text is in a sense a monotonous because editor seems to put the print from the manuscript. Though I fully understand that such work itself is very difficult. Now let me show the example of this monotony. On the left of 25A, we read, here we read Pramana Bhutai, Bhutai Ithi Adina, Keina Asau Stuyate. Here we can read. And here Katamcha Aparadino Asau Iena Uchiate, Tishtanti Eva Pradina Yeshamcha Mahati Kripe Ithi Adi, here you can see. The two phrases Ithi Adi in these sentences indicates that this portion preceding to them are quoted from some sources. The next page contains a more clear example. Here we read. Now we can see the second edition. This is a table of contents. You can see the number of introductions is so long, about 70 pages. And here is the index of... And this is the same portion which we have seen. Here Pramana Bhutai is the same quotation. So he indicates here this quotation from Pramana Samutya 1. This is the same portion. And here he printed his two lines. And he has mentioned this quotation from Pramana Samutya 3.210. So this kind of explanation or indication of quoting is just possible by a very brilliant and wide-reading scholar only. To conclude this presentation, I would like to propose a plan. There are still giant texts on logic to be edited with modern methods, which Mahendal Kumar took. From Digambal's side we have these texts. Some of them are mentioned in the morning. And from Shibetana's side, we have this Pramana Samutya 3.210. I'll look up with all the commentaries about that. Nowadays, even one of these works is too heavy to be dealt with by a single scholar. However, we have useful equipment or systems such as a PC or internet which are not available in the day of our pandits or monks. Therefore, some scholars can cooperate internationally to compile the better edition of these works. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for this great lecture. It's very important to know what is still to be done. And so we are pleased to welcome our last but not least speaker of the day, Steven Vos. Who will be speaking about what seems to be the most perfect introduction to our next roundtable. So from gynaeology to giant studies and back towards a dialogical approach to scholarly engagement with giant communities. I let you the floor. Thank you, Maria Lane. Is this all right? Can you hear me fine? Good. Yeah, as I was thinking about this, my paper here when Peter introduced the topic about the sort of 20th anniversary here of the Jain Studies workshop. I kind of took that perhaps a little too literally and thought about, you know, what is the state of our field been? And for those of you who were at the EASR conference in September, a lot of this will sound familiar to you. I would have been thinking a bit since I am now the Bhagwan Mahavir Assistant Professor of Jain Studies at Florida International University and never thought I would be. Sort of trying to figure out like how my job is actually different from sort of a typical assistant professor's job. As many of you know, the Jain Studies program at Florida International University was endowed by a foundation called the Jain Education and Research Foundation. Which is a group of Jains from around the United States who got together finally and endowed the Jain Studies Professorship there. Which includes an endowment that gives us some programming money. So we have, of course, the Mahavir Jainty Lecture that Professor Balbir and Dundas Court and others have graciously given. And, yeah, as an assistant professor and someone who kind of came up through the ivory tower and thought of himself as a scholar and not as much more than that, I've found that I've also had to play the role of diplomat, which I don't know I'm particularly good at, but I give it a shot anyway. But really my training and my inspiration for joining Jain Studies as a field came from Whitney Kelting. And as an anthropologist, the thing that I liked the most about her approach was that what she wanted to portray in terms of what the Jain tradition is, is how people live it. And this lived religions approach has really, I think, dominated American scholarship over the last 30 years. And I think also a little bit in Europe as well. And I was just, as I was thinking about my remarks for today, I dug through my old actual paper file of articles that I keep from one John Court, among other scholars here, and found his 1988 correspondent to the Center for the Study of World Religions at Harvard Domenity School. And he was the foreign correspondent then because he was doing his dissertation research 30 years ago this year. And so really the lived religions approach is 30 years old now, we can say that. And the article that he wrote is called Pilgrimage to Shankeshwar Parshwanath. And the thing that really has stuck out with me is that he gets on a bus, and there's other Jains on this state transport bus going from Patton to Shankeshwar. And as the bus starts up, they say, Bolo, Bhagwan Shankeshwar Parshwanath ki Jay. Thank you. For illustrating a point I'm about to make here. And his point in doing this is to say that the way that we've been studying Jainism in the Western Academy up to this point, as a sort of a series of abstract doctrines and beliefs, scriptures and philosophies, has actually missed a great deal of what we mean when we think about what it actually means to be a Jain. Most significantly being what is devotional life? What kind of emotional connections do Jains actually forge to the relationship of what we call the soteriology of moksha? And so much of his work has inspired Whitney Kelting, it's inspired me. I think most of us today, and I know especially Thilo de Thig, and a lot of the people at Ghent have been transformed by this lived religions approach. So this is not just an American thing, although I know the American situation best. And that's why I talked about this as an American thing. But there's a remark that John makes a little later on in this article. He says, the average Jain is no more a systematic theologian than the average Christian. And there's no such thing as a Jain seminary or divinity school. Nonetheless, there is or are a Jain theology. And Jains are very insulted when described by scholars as atheists. They do not believe that God created the world, but rather that God showed the way out of the imperfect temporal world to the soul's true state of infinite knowledge, power, bliss and consciousness. They do very much believe in God, and it is that strong belief that motivates the hundreds of thousands of pilgrims who come to Shankeshwar every year. And he goes on. And what I find very interesting about statements like that is that I think it encapsulates what we call the lived religions approach very nicely. And one important aspect of that that I think is actually deeply ethical, that the lived religions approach is at its heart kind of an ethical intervention in scholarship. And that it's an attempt to show the Jain tradition in a way that's not just an abstract set of sort of doctrines and beliefs and so forth, but an actual living breathing religion that people who professed to be Jains could actually see themselves occupying. And I think that, yeah, the ethical nature of that intervention I think has kind of run into a new impasse based on some of the things that I hear from my donors. So my first year when I formally took over as the Bhagwan Mahavir Assistant Professor of Jain Studies at Florida International, I met with the Board of Donors as I do every spring. And one of our donors had said of Professor Phyllis Granov and Professor John Court and Professor Nellini Balbir and Professor Paul Dundas, that it's wonderful that we have all of these scholars who come and very eminent figures who come and give these lectures, but they're all studying things that are really not Jainism and they're really inessential like art and literature and women. We want real Jainism. Give us real Jainism. So I was like, oh boy, I've got a lot of digging to do here. And so I invited Professor Jay Soni for the next year who gave us a lecture on Jain philosophy just like they wanted. And so I realized that part of my job here as the Professor of Jain Studies here is to actually try to bridge a gap between what I think of as a deeply ethical movement within the representation of the Jain tradition as one that is about people. And I think Paul Dundas's book in 1992 was called The Jains and Not Jainism for a very specific reason that we were trying to show that the field is evolving in a way that is much more oriented toward people. Up against my donors who, the last thing that they really want us to study is Jains. They want us to study Jainism. And so I felt like, my goodness, maybe I don't belong here after all. And I'm trying to sort of sort my way through this right now. So I've been thinking a lot about how we can actually come up against the fact that really some Jains would prefer that we don't study Jains and that we do study Jainism. And so they have sort of a kind of an unease about seeing themselves as kind of the object of study rather than their tradition. And so I've started thinking about how some of my colleagues who say do Jain philosophy and I as a historian feel like I'm kind of in between these two things because I don't actually study living people anymore. I kind of study people who once lived in the traces they've left behind. But thinking about how my colleagues who do philosophy actually work very well collaboratively with Jains on sort of working on material together. And whether that might be a kind of a new step forward for the way that we as scholars write and the way that we think about who our audience is when we write our works on Jainism or about Jains. And so I was thinking particularly of people who like myself go to India on our research years to write our dissertations and our books. And we work very closely as Professor Fujinaga just nicely showed, right? We work very closely with Jain intellectuals there in India who usually can't leave the country because they're monks or nuns or have other restrictions that prevent them from being able to travel clearly. And so we work with those materials and we work with those people. And the knowledge that we produce we try and it's usually produced in a European language so it has limited circulation among Jain communities in India. But we try to I think do right by the people that we work with on the whole. And so if we are this invested in sort of the ethics of how we represent the tradition and the people that we study as I really see that the lived religions approach was trying to foster in the late 80s and through the 90s and into today. Then I think that all of us really take this challenge seriously about how it is that we're going to continue to represent the tradition that we study. And maybe that actually has to do with taking a more what I'm calling a dialogic approach. Because the thing that so the question here in the title of my talk was from Jainology to Jain Studies and back. And to me the answer to that should be no. We shouldn't actually go back to Jainology really. And I think the tools question earlier sort of pointed this out isn't there sort of an indelogical bias in the project of creating an encyclopedia. And I think that all of us attend to that question very seriously and would try to think about an encyclopedia that is not sort of another indelogical object. But rather something else. I think all of us were deeply influenced by Edward Said's Orientalism and Ron Indan's sort of imagining India. And I've tried to really rethink how it is we go about studying who and what we study. And yet the world religions approach I mean sorry the lived religions approach is still very much based on a kind of world religions model of knowledge production. The audience for our works is still very much sort of a scholarly community or a community of students depending on the level at which we pitch it. And so the idea that sort of we're producing knowledge about Jainism to fill a gap in our understanding of world religions. So in a sense even the lived religions approach is somewhat based on the idea that what we're trying to study is the human phenomenon of religion. We're studying homo religiosis and the particular form of it that we're studying is Jainensis if you will. And perhaps that model has run its course. And so by refiguring the lived religions approach toward this dialogical model of writing and speaking. I think that what we can actually do is to help scholars engage with the increasing fact that Jains themselves are the audience of our work. Both as donors to university programs and also in the fact that the diaspora community is expanding. And there is a great interest in scholarship in sort of the Western academic model as a valid way of knowing about Jainism. And that goes as deeply as some of my Jain neighbors in South Florida call me up and ask me to give lectures at the local Jain Center there. I do it once a year at least. And I frequently feel like I'm stuck in the middle of some sort of debate that's going on that I don't know about. So what is the right way to do this puja? I think however you say. My job is really to sort of is not to adjudicate what is the right and wrong way to do things or what is the correct or incorrect belief. But whatever you say is the debate that you're having and it's my job to sort of observe that and pay homage to the fact that there is a debate going on within the tradition. And so what I think it might be very helpful in terms of a new model of how we write if we think about this more dialogically. It's to say that, you know, who actually has the power to represent Jainism, right? Because one of the things that I think that a lot of Jains see is they want to see Jainism as contributing to the ongoing debates that we're having in so many fields, right? Environmentalism, business ethics, so on and so forth, right? And Jainism can contribute meaningfully to those debates. Also that there are debates going on within the Jain community in diaspora situations and in India as well. In which, you know, power questions of power are always going to come up and are perhaps elided through the effort to try to say, well, I want this represented. This is what I think Jainism is. And we may not realize or some people may not realize that in fact there are many, many, many versions of Jainism. And to say like this one is going to be privileged over another is actually slightly problematic. And I think that what frequently happens when scholars who are not Jain try to intervene in those things, the pushback I frequently hear is, well, you don't really understand, right? Issues of feminism, for instance, are not actually present in Jainism. There's no such thing as a Jain feminism. Jainism is sort of both alien to and unwelcome in the discussion about what Jainism should be. And yet I also, when I go to Jaina, the Jain Association of North America conference, I see young Jains who are frankly upset with some of their elders in terms of how they feel like they have been pushed into one particular form of the tradition that may or may not be working out for them. And so for them actually questions of gender and power and class are actually deeply part of the conversation they would like to have and are not actually capable of having. And so I think that if we are able as scholars to have a more reasonable conversation about how things that we have been classically interested in as academic interests like gender, class, power, so on and so forth, can actually contribute to the ways that Jains, especially living in the diaspora, can sort of take part in those debates and actually recognize them as part of how it is they're going to help their children become, see their tradition as part of the mainstream of say American society or British society. Then I think that that's actually a new way that scholarship can be useful to an audience that is increasingly interested in us. And from there I know that we'll have a round table debate as we go forth, but those are my remarks. Thank you.