________________
( 57 ) that the Arbitrator is not impartial. Had he been so the judgement would have not got the present colouring. He criticises Acharya Sagaranandasuri but he does not take the trouble of establishing what Acharya Vijaya Ramchandrasuri has to propound. These facts become easily evident to any reader of the judgement.
The Arbitrator says on page 23 last line arestatai किमपि पञ्चाङ्गमाश्रित्य लौकिकवल्लोकोत्तरोऽपि व्यवहारः प्रवृत्त इति स एव समर्थनीयः इति धियैव तैराचार्यश्रीसागरानन्दसूरीणां प्रतिपक्षत्वं खीकृतं प्रबलाभियुक्तिभिश्च
HAN HATTE I He says that Acharya Vijaya Ramchandrasuri is of opinion that general Panchangs should be followed. This is not proper because even among the Sanatanists the smarts observe Ekadasi on one day and the Vaishnavas on the other, as their religious beliefs differ, Similarly Jainism is quite a distinct and an independent faith and its followers are entitled to preserve the sanctity of their own doctrines and beliefs.
The arbitrator says that Acharya Vijaya Ramchandrasuri has supported his statements with strong reasoning and authorities. It is strange we do not find any reasoning of that Acharya in the judgement. It appears the arbitrator personifies himself as Acharya Vijayaramchandrasuri and unreasonably and improperly attacks the ground taken by Acharya Sagaranandasuri. Had it not been so, the Jain Samaj would not have so violently opposed the judgement and all the famous Pandits would not have so unanimously objected to the judgement and attacked its bonafides.
TT. 7. 9.6
Shree Sudharmaswami Gyanbhandar-Umara, Surat
www.umaragyanbhandar.com
