MokshaMargPrakashak …14

 

Charvaak Faith

Now the form of Charvaak faith is described-

‘There no omniscient,  dharma-adhrama moksha, there are no fruits of punya-pap, there is no Parlok – what all is visible to senses, the Lok is that much’- thus tells the Charvaak.

There we ask them- The omniscient is not there in this kaal and kshetra or always-everywhere? In this kaal-kshetra, we too do not accept but he does not exist in all kaal-kshetra- how this knowledge was attained without being omniscient? ‘The one who knows all kaal-kshetra, he only is omniscient’ and if you do not know then how do you oppose it?

There, Dharma-Adharma are famous in the Lok- if they are imaginary then how are they so  famous in all the people? And the manifestations in dharma-adharma form are seen, with that only they are seen to be sukhi-dukhi in present; how do we reject it? The attainment of Moksha is inferred- Anger etc. flaws are less in someone and more in someone else; hence it can be known that someone would have absence of these also. And gyan etc, gunas are seen to be less or more for someone; hence it can be  known that for someone it would be complete.

-          Thus for whom all the flaws are eliminated and the gunas are attained, that only is Moksha state.

There the result of punya-pap is also seen- Someone with efforts also remains poor, someone has wealth by itself. Someone  remains ill in spite of efforts of body,  someone without efforts remains healthy. These are directly seen,  there should be some reason for it? Hence the reason only is punya-pap. And the Parlok  is also felt by Pratyaksha-Anumaan – Vyantar etc. are seen to be saying that ‘ I was so, now I am  Deva’

Then you shall say- ‘ this is wind only’.

There we call as Atma in which ‘ I am’ etc. form Chetana form bhavas are seen to exist; you call that as ‘wind’ ; but wind is blocked by wall etc. ; soul is not seen to be blocked upon death also ; how can we call it wind?

You call the Lok to be whatever is visible by senses but you cannot see with senses   the distant places of few Yojans and slightest past-future kaal –  kshetra related substances , where as traditionally we hear of distant countries and things pertaining to different kaals , hence their knowledge, you do not have ; then how do you say that Lok is this much only?

In Charvaak Faith they tell- With conjunction of earth, fire, water, wind, sky the Chetana is produced, whereas upon death the earth etc. remain here; the conscious substance has gone and become  Vyantar etc.- these are seen directly different. And in one body the earth etc. also appear to be different ; where as the Chetana appears to be same. If the Chetana is upon basis of earth etc. then in flesh, blood, breath etc. different Chetana should be there. With cutting of  hand etc. just as the varna etc. remain with it ; the same way Chetana also stays. And ego,  buddhi are present in Chetana but earth etc. form body remained here only, then in vyantar etc. paryaya the oneness with previous paryaya is seen , how is that possible? And the secret information of previous paryaya are revealed; hence that knowledge was shared with whom? The one who had the knowledge ,  that only is ‘Atma’.

In Charvaak faith – eating, drinking, enjoyments, etc. preachment of promiscuity are given but the world itself manifests in such form. There by creating shastras etc. what preachment of being good is given? You will say – For renouncing Tapa,  sheel, Sanyam etc. preachment was given , but in  these Tapa etc. activities with reduction of Kashaya the restlessness reduces; hence he becomes happy here itself and fame etc. is attained, but by renouncing these what benefits you cause?

By telling tales favourable to jivas obsessed with lust you are not afraid to harm yourself and others; for sensory enjoyments with promiscuity you give such false logic.

In this the Charvaak faith was refuted.

Other faiths rebuttal : Conclusion

In the same way there are several other faiths, which by creating false logic, have been revealed by papi jivas obsessed with sensory enjoyments, with their shraddhan the jivas get harmed.

And one Jina faith is there which  propagates truth , it has been sermonized by omniscient Veetrag Deva; with his shraddha etc. only the Jivas get benefited- in such Jina faith the Jivas etc. tattvas have been narrated; Pratyaksh-Paroksh two Pramans have been told; omniscient -Veetrag Arahant Deva is there; without internal-external possessions the Nirgranth Guru is there.

-          Their description would be written further in this Granth , know from there.

Here someone says- You have raga-dwesha ; hence by negating the other faiths , you try to establish your own faith.

To him it is told- In description of true thing there is no raga-dwesha. If with some objective , the narration is otherwise, then it gets to be called raga-dwesha.

Then he says – If raga-dwesha are not there then why do you tell other faiths as bad and Jain faith as good? With equanimity know all of them as equal ; why do you take sides?

To him we say- We call bad as bad, good as good; what is raga-dwesha there? And knowing good-bad as equal is agyan bhava; not equanimity.

Then he says- The objective of all faiths is same only; hence all should be known as equal.

To him we say- If objective is same then why should there be different faiths? In one faith with  one objective, the addressal is in different ways, who calls it different faith? But there the objectives also are different, that is demonstrated-

Comparison of other faiths with Jain faith

In Jain faith the objective is to nourish the Veetrag bhava; hence in stories, description of Lok etc., conduct and in Tattvas , everywhere the detachment only has been supported.

Whereas in other faiths the bhava with raga have only been supported since the imaginary creations are carried out by passionate jivas only and with different types of arguments they support the kashaya bhavas only.

For ex. – Adwait Bramhvadi , accepting all as Bramh; Samkhya followers, believing all deeds to be that of Prakriti and believing self to be Shuddha non-karta; Shiva followers believing the siddhi from knowledge of tattva only; Mimamsak believing Kashaya tainted conduct as dharma; bauddha believing all to be momentary; charvaak without accepting ParLok etc.; support promiscuity of sensory enjoyments form Kashaya activities only.

Although in some places they also talk of reducing Kashaya but with that deceit they support some other Kashaya. For ex.- leaving house activities, the bhajan of Parameshwara was carried out, but the form of Parameshwara is established as Saragi and with that support they nourish their own sensory subjects and Kashaya.

Whereas in Jain Dharma ‘ The form of Deva-Guru-Dharma etc.’ is declared as Veetrag only and only Veetragata is nurtured- this is obvious.

What can we say? The follower of other faith Bhartrihari has told thus in ‘detachment scenario’-

Amongst Ragi people one Mahadeva is glorious, who is holding his favourite Parvati in half the body and amongst Veetragis Jina Deva is glorious , compared to him no one is better in renouncing the company of women. The remaining people have been made unconscious by the snakes venom  form arrows of Kamdeva, who cannot properly enjoy the subjects due to irony of lust , nor can they give it up.

In this verse the MahaDeva has been called as prime amongst the Saragis and amongst Veetragis JinaDeva is called as prime. When Sarag bhava and Veetrag bhava have mutual opposition ; hence both cannot be  good and only one of them is beneficial.

Hence Veetrag bhava only is beneficial ; with whose presence the restlessness is immediately eliminated, he becomes venerable; which leads to ‘future benefit’ and with Sarag bhava immediate restlessness is experienced, it is deplorable; which causes ‘future harm’. Hence the one which has veetrag bhava only as objective-such Jain faith only is desirable. And where Sarag bhava only are the objective- such other faiths are harmful; how can they be treated as equal?

Then he says- This is true but with criticism of other faith, the followers of that faith become unhappy, opposition is generated; hence why should we criticise?

It is told- If we criticise with Kashaya and cause misery to others then we are Papi only but with the shraddhan of other faith etc.  the wrong shraddhan of jivas get strengthened, which results in jiva being unhappy in the world; hence with compassionate bhava the reality has been narrated. Some one without reason becomes unhappy, and objects then what can we do?

For example by criticising liquor the wine maker becomes unhappy, with criticism of kusheel prostitutes become unhappy and with the test of pure and mixed the cheats become  unhappy so what can we do?

In this way out of fear of Papis, if the dharma preachment is not given then how jivas would be benefited? There is no such preachment by which all can get comforted.

And it generates opposition, the opposition happens   by mutual arguments. If we do not fight then they would be automatically subsided. We shall be getting the results of own manifestations only. 

There someone says – With wrong shraddhan of meaningful Jivas etc. tattvas, Mithya darshan etc. are attained; with shraddhan of other faiths how will it result in Mithya darshan etc. ?

Its answer- In other faiths with converse arguments, the form of Jivas etc. tattvas do  not appear to be  real – such means are resorted to, why so ?

If the form of Jivas etc. Tattvas appear to be real then being Veetrag bhava only the Mahant nature would be seen, but the Jiva who is not Veetragi and desires to be Mahant, in spite of  having Sarag bhava have narrated it with imaginary arguments for establishing their own Mahant-ness.

Narrating the Adwait Bramha etc., they establish the non real shraddhan of Jiva-Ajiva; with support of promiscuity they establish non real shraddhan of Asrava-Samvar etc.; and with Moksha having form with Kashaya and non conscious , they establish non real shraddhan of Moksha. There the false nature of other faiths has been revealed. If their falsehood is felt then interest in Tattva shraddhan would arise and with its logic the delusion would not be generated.

In this way the other faiths were narrated.

With quotations of scriptures of other faiths , establishing the antiquity of Jain dharma  and its expediency

Now by means of proofs of the scriptures of other faiths itself the antiquity of Jain faith and its expediency is demonstrated-

‘Large Yog Vashishth’ is 36000 shlokas size granth, in its first “Vairagya treatise” in the chapter of “ Ahankara Nishedh” , in the dialog between Vashishth and Ram it is told-

Ram said – “ ….”

In it  Ramji has desired to be like Jina ; hence The supremacy of Jinadeva compared to Ramji and his  ancient nature was revealed.

In ‘Dakshinamurty Sahasra Naam’ it is said –

Shiva said – “……”

Here the name of Bhagwat was told to be ‘engaged in Jain path’ and told to be ‘ Jain’ ; hence it reveals the ancient nature of Jain path and its primacy.

In Vaishampayan Sahasra naam’ it is said-  “  ……”

Here the name of Bhagwan was told as ‘Jineshwara’ hence Jineshwara is Bhagwan. 

In the “Mahimni strotra” authored by Durvasa Rishi it is said-  “ …..”

Here ‘ You are Arahant’ – with such words the stuti of Bhagwant is performed; hence the Bhagwant nature of Arahant is revealed.

In ‘Hanumannatak’ it is said- “ ….”

Here in six faiths one Ishwara is told, there too in Arahant Deva the Ishwara nature is revealed.

Here someone says- just as in several faiths one Ishwara is accepted, in the same way you also accept.

To him is it told- This is told by you , not us; hence in your faith the Ishwara nature of Arahant is established. If the same is also told in our faith also, then we too would accept Shiva etc. as Ishwara.

Just as- some businessman shows real jewels and some shows false jewels; there the one with false jewels tells the rate of all jewels to be equal  but how can the one with real jewels accept that? In the same way Jaini describes real Deva etc. , the other followers describe false Devas; there the other faith follower for his own glory tells all of them to be equal, but how can Jaini accept it?

In “Bhavani SahasraNaam’ of ‘Rudrayaamalatantra’ it is said- “….”

Here the name of Bhavani is said to be ‘Jineshwari’ etc.; thus ‘ the supremacy of ‘ Jin’ was revealed.

In ‘Ganesh Purana’ it is said – “….”

In ‘Vyaskrita sutra’ it is said – “ …..”

….etc. in their shstras ‘ Jain narration’ is there; hence the ancient nature of Jain faith is revealed.

In the fifth skandh of ‘Bhagwat’ there is description of ‘Rishabh Avatar’ ; there he is told to be compassionate, devoid of thirst etc. , having dhyan posture, worshipped by all ashramas (groups); in accordance with them ’the Arahant Raja manifested’ – this is told; hence just as in accordance with incarnations of Ram-Krishna etc. the other faiths are there; in the same way in accordance with incarnation of Rishabh  the ‘Jain faith’ exists. In this way with your faith itself the Jain faith was established.

Here this too should  be considered that in accordance with incarnation of Krishna etc, the propagation of sensory subjects-passions etc. occurs; in accordance with Rishabh incarnation the propagation of Veetrag equanimity occurs. By accepting both tendencies as same there is no difference between dharma-adharma and by accepting difference, the one which is appropriate,  that should be followed.

In ‘Dashavatara charitra’ the form of Buddhavatara is told to be like that of Arahant Deva; if such form is venerable then simply Arahant Deva is venerable.

In “Kashi Khand’ by addressing Devadas King, the kingdom was renounced; there Narayan became Vinaya Kirti Yati; Lakshmi was made to be VinayShri Aryika ; Garud was made as Shravak – such narration is there; hence where addressal was done, there Jain attire was given; therefore Jain appear to be benedictory and ancient.

In ‘Prabhas Purana’ it is said – “…..”

Here ‘Vaman’ is said to have darshan of ‘Padmasan Digamber Neminath’ ; the same is called as ‘Shiva’ and with his darshan etc. the benefit of crores of Yagya is attained- such form of Neminath is accepted by Jaini directly ; hence it is Praman.

In the same ‘Prabhas Purana’ it is also said –  “ ….”

Here Neminath is called by ‘Jina’ name; his place is called as Ashram of Rishi and cause of salvation and the place of Yuga etc. are also said to be same; hence they are greatly venerable.

In Bhavavatar Rahasya of ‘Nagar Purana’ it is said- “….”

Here “Arham” – such state is called as ‘Param Tattva’ , with its knowledge the attainment of supreme gati is told; hence ‘Arham’ state is the same as that of Jain faith.

In ‘Nagar Purana’ it is said- “….”

Here in Krita Yuga the benefit of feeding ten Brahmans is told to be equal to the benefit of feeding Arahant disciple Muni in Kali Yuga; hence jain muni is supreme.

In ‘Manu Smriti’ it is told- “…..”

Here VimalVahan etc. Manu are told, there the same names are told as that of Jain Kulkaras and here first Jina was said to be director of path in the beginning of Yuga and venerated by Sura-Asura – this is the same way which is there in Jain faith in beginning of Yuga hence why it cannot be called as Praman form?

In RigVeda it is told – “ …..”

In YajurVeda it is told - “ ….” , “…….” etc.

-          Here the poojan etc. of Jain Tirthanakaras is carried out hence this too is apparent that after them only,  the Vedas have been created.

In the same way with the attestations of granths of other faiths also, the supremacy of Jina Faith and its ancient nature is established and upon observation of Jina faith , those faiths appear to be imaginary only ; hence those who are interested in benefit for self , they should abandon partiality and accept the true Jain faith.

In other faiths the contradiction between earlier-later is apparent- In  the first incarnation the redemption of Vedas was carried out, there the Himsa in Yagya etc. was supported and in Buddha incarnation , criticising Yagya the himsa was negated. In Vrishabh incarnation the path of Veetrag Samyam was shown and in Krishna incarnation the enjoyment with other women etc. form path of  sensual pleasures and Kashaya was shown.

Now , who should the worldly people follow? In accordance with whom they should practice? – They tell all the incarnations to be same but some tell one way and then other way and practice that way; then how can we have faith in their telling and practicing?

Somewhere they negate the anger etc. kashayas and sensory subjects and somewhere they preach for fighting and enjoyment of sensory subjects. They call it as destiny but without generation of anger etc. , if the fighting etc. activities happen then it can be accepted, but it does not happen that way. And with fighting etc. activities if the anger etc. are not generated then which different anger etc. are there which have been negated; hence this is not acceptable, there is contradiction between earlier and later.

In Gita by showing Veetragta the preachment of war is given, this is directly contradictory. And ‘Rishishwara etc.  gave ‘curse’ – how such anger  is not deplorable? Etc.

And it is told that without son the gati is not attained, where as in ‘Bharat’ it is said that Kumar Bramhacharis went to heaven – this is directly contradictory.

In Rishishwara ‘Bharat’ it is said – “ ….”

Here the wine-meat etc., food in the night and specially night food in four month period ( rainy season) and partaking of roots are negated.

On the other hand their great people are said to be enjoyer of wine-meat etc. Contradictory statement of eating at night during Vrita etc. and eating of roots etc. are made.

In the same way different contradictory statements are made in the shastras of other faiths; hence what to do? Somewhere, knowing them to be earlier tradition, for giving confidence, they are called as real and somewhere for propagating sensory subjects and Kashaya they are called as unreal; hence where the contradiction between past and present statements is there, how can they be Praman?

In other faiths, the words supporting forgiveness, sheel, satisfaction etc. are found in Jain faith also and the contrary words are their imaginations. There by accepting the words in accordance with Jina faith, the wrongs words also get believed.

Hence by seeing some part in other faith as good, one should not have shraddhan there. Just as poison mixed food is not safe, know thus.

And if some  part of good dharma is not found in Jina faith and it is found elsewhere or, if some part of unacceptable adharma is found in Jina faith and it is not found elsewhere then have respect for other faith, but this has never happened since in the knowledge of omniscient nothing is hidden. Therefore discarding the shraddhan of other faiths, have strong shraddhan of Jina Faith.

Continued…..