MokshaMargPrakashak …17

 

Sixth Chapter

Negation of Ku Deva-Ku Guru- Ku Dharma

Since beginningless times the Jivas have Mithya darshan etc Bhavas; the reason for its continuity  is practice of KuDeva-KuGuru-KuDharma ; with its renunciation only the engagement in Moksha Marga occurs; hence that is  described next-

Description of Ku Deva and negation of their shraddhan

There, those who are not karta of benediction, serving them believing them to be karta of benediction by delusion, they are Ku Deva. Their practice is carried out with three types of objectives- somewhere Moksha is objective; somewhere ‘ParLok’ is objective and somewhere ‘this Lok’ is objective but none of these objectives are established  instead some harm only is carried out; hence their practice is Mithya Bhava.

That is described- In the other faiths, with the practices by which the attainment of salvation is described, that is carried out by several jivas for Moksha but Moksha is not attained; it has been narrated earlier in fifth chapter of ‘Other faiths’.

And several people practice the Devas described in Other faiths with the objective of ‘happiness in Parlok; and elimination of Dukh’.  Such attainment is done with ‘generation of punya and avoidance of pap’ but self generates pap and says – ‘Ishwara would benefit us’ – then it is unfair since ‘someone is awarded result of pap and someone else is not awarded ‘ – this is not right. “The way one manifests, accordingly he would get results; Ishwara does not do good or bad of anyone.”

There while practicing those Devas, they take name of those Devas and engage in Himsa of other jivas and with food,  dances etc. satisfy their senses, but the result of pap manifestations cannot be avoided. Himsa, Sensory subjects- Kashaya etc. all are called Pap and all believe the result of pap to be bad  only, and in the practice of Kudevas also there is engagement in Himsa and sensory subjects only; hence with practice of KuDevas one  cannot be benefited in Parlok.

There several Jivas ‘for elimination of enemies of this paryaya and curing of diseases etc. and attainment of wealth and son etc., and getting sukh with elimination of dukh  and several such objectives’ practice Kudevas. Hanuman etc. are worshipped; Devis are worshipped; GanGaur-Sanjhi etc. are worshipped; choth-Sheetala-Dahari etc. are worshipped; childless-pitar-vyantar etc are worshipped; sun-moon-shani etc Jyotishi are worshipped; Pir-paigamber etc. are worshipped; cow-horse etc. Tiryanch are worshipped; fire-water etc. are worshipped; weapons are worshipped; what more can be said? Stones etc. are also worshipped.

In this way the practice of KuDeva etc. is done with Mithya darshan  since firstly the ones he practices, out of them several are imaginary Devas hence how can their practice be beneficial?

Forms of Vyantar etc. and negation of their Worship

There several Vyantars etc are there- who are not capable of doing good or bad for anyone. If they are capable then they only would be Karta, but with actions nothing is seen to be accomplished; they cannot give wealth etc, by being happy and being dweshi they cannot harm anyone.

Here someone says- They are seen giving punishment; by their acknowledgment they stop giving punishment?

Its answer- If there is fruition of Pap of someone, then they (devas)  have such buddhi of intrigue and they act accordingly by which that person becomes unhappy. And if they say something in that intrigue and this person follows their directions, they either stop the punishment and knowing him to be weak continue to do intrigue. And if his punya is under fruition then they cannot do anything.

This too is seen- Some jiva who do not worship them and deplore them, then they do have dwesha with him but they cannot cause him misery.

They are seen to be saying thus- This one does not have reverence towards us, but we do not have any control  over him; hence Vyantar etc. are not capable of doing anything; with his punya-pap only the sukh-dukh is accrued, with their worship-acceptance only disease is accrued, no purpose is served.

There know this- Somewhere the wonders etc. of imaginary devas are also seen  but they are created by Vyantar etc. Someone in previous paryaya was their servant, later after death he became Vyantar etc. and with some nimitta he had such buddhi then to serve him in the Lok, he carried out some wonder. The innocent world, upon seeing wonders, engages in those activities. This way some idols of Jina are said or seen to have some miracles but they are not created by Jina; they are performed by Jain Vyantars etc.; in the same way the Kudevas also perform some miracles. Which is enacted by their servant Vyantar etc.- know thus.

In other faith the Parameshwara helped his Bhaktas and gave his direct darshan etc. -it is told. There several are imaginary stories. Many of the deeds are carried out by their servant Vyantar etc. which are said to be done by Parameshwara. If they are done by Parameshwara then Parameshwara is omniscient and capable in every way; why would he permit his Bhaktas to suffer?

Then even now it is seen- Mlecchas come and make Bhaktas suffer; the dharma is interrupted and idols are destroyed. If Parameshwara does not have knowledge of all these acts then his omniscience would not remain; after knowing also if he does not help then  there is no affection towards bhaktas and he is incapable. And if he just remains witness then the statement that he assisted Bhaktas is also a lie since he has consistent activity.

If you say- Such Bhakti was not there; then we say- They were superior  to Mlecchas anyway and they only had erected idol etc., that should have been protected? There the fruition of Mleccha Papis has occurred, that is created by Parameshwara or not? If it is created by Parameshwara then how does he make critics happy and produces those who make  bhaktas suffer. Thus how did he remain affectionate towards Bhaktas? And if the Parameshwara does not do any thing then he is incapable; hence Parameshwara does not do any act. There some servant vyantar etc. only shows their miracles- this only should be decided.

Here someone may ask- Some Vyantar demonstrates his greatness and informs the unseen. Someone declares his abode to be in Kusthana to indicate his lowliness ; he does not tell what is asked and speaks deceitful words, makes others manifest differently, causes misery. What is the cause of such anomalies?

Its reply- In Vyantars there is more or less of Prabhutva but those who declare their lowliness by informing their abode to be Kusthana , that is out of intrigue. Vyantars keep indulging in intrigues like children. Just as child by means of intrigue shows himself to be low and teases, cries loudly upon hearing abuse, later starts laughing ; in the same way the Vyantar act. If they are resident of Kusthana then why do they come to superior sthana ? If they come with own capability then in spite of capability why do they stay in Kusthana? Hence their abode is where they are born , which is above and below this earth. For intrigue they say whatever they desire. If they also suffer then  while crying how they start laughing?

This is for sure- The Mantra etc. have indescribable power; hence with the nimitta-naimittik relationship  of true Mantra, possibly  he cannot travel etc.. If some  dukh is generated and someone strongly prevents him then he cannot go, in these ways Mantra has capability but it cannot burn them . The Mantra people call him to be burnt, but he appears again, since the burning of Vaikriyik  body is not possible.

And Awadhi Gyan of Vyantars- Some have knowledge of small ksherta-kaal and some one has that of large kshetra-kaal. There if they desire and if they have lot of knowledge then upon enquiry of unseen, they can answer. If knowledge is less then they can enquire with other greater  gyani and answer. And if knowledge is less and desire is not there, then upon enquiry also they do not answer- know thus.

There after taking birth as Vyantar etc. for the one having less  gyan, for long period the knowledge of previous birth can remain. Later only memory remains; hence if someone desires and if they make attempt then they can talk of previous birth. If someone asks some other subject then since the Awadhi Gyan is less; without knowing they cannot tell, hence those questions they do not answer and if desire is not there, then with pride or intrigue they do not answer or speak lie- know thus.

And Devas have such capability- they can cause manifestation of own or other’s body and pudgala skandh  in the form desired ; hence they can take different shape forms and demonstrate different characters. They can make the body of other jivas to be  diseased form.

There this is for sure- Depending upon their capability they can make own body and other pudgala skandhs, manifest to that extent; but they do not have capability of carrying out all deeds.

And the bodies of other jivas also can be manifested in accordance with their punya-pap only; if their punya is under fruition then they cannot make it manifest in diseased form and if fruition of pap is there then they cannot fulfil the desired deeds.

-          Thus know the capability of Vyantar etc.

Here someone says- Those who are having such capability, what is the harm in accepting -worshipping them?

Its reply- Upon fruition of own pap, they cannot give sukh; upon fruition of punya, they cannot give dukh and with their worshipping no punya bandh accrues; with enhancement of ragas etc. it results in pap only; hence their belief and worship is not meaningful; it is harmful only.

And the Vyantar who get themselves to be believed and worshipped,  they carry out intrigues; no specific objective is there. To those who believe them and worship them, they keep enacting intrigues; those who do not believe and worship them, they do not tell them anything.

If it is their objective then they should make non believers-non worshippers as very unhappy, but those who have firm conviction of their non belief- non reverence , they are not seen to be disturbing them.

They may have agony of hunger etc. but it is not explicit for them. If it is so then when offering is made to them then why don’t they accept it? Why do they ask to feed others? Hence this is just intrigue form  activity; and ourselves suffer and feel inferior; hence accepting -worshipping them is not appropriate.

Here someone enquires- Vyantars say that offer Pind in Gaya then we shall attain suitable Gati , we shall not come again; what is that?

Its reply- Jivas have Sanskar of the previous births. In Vyantars also the special Sanskar due to recollection of previous birth etc.  exist; in their previous birth they had such impression that by offering Pind in Gaya etc. one gets suitable Gati; hence they ask to perform such deeds.

If Muslim after death become Vyantar, then they do not say so, they tell words in accordance with their Sanskar. Hence if all Vyantars have the same Gati then all would ask the same , but it is not so- know thus.

-          Thus know the form of Vyantar etc.

They worship Sun-moon planets which  are Jyotishi ; which too is delusion. Believing Sun etc. to be part of Parameshwara they worship but they have only greatness of illumination only, but other jewels are also illuminated ; there is no other characteristics by which they can be accepted as part of Parameshwara. And moon etc. are worshipped for attainments of wealth etc. but if their poojan results in wealth then all poor people would do that; hence it is Mithya Bhava.

In accordance with the concept of Jyotish, upon influx of bad planets they are worshipped, for that they offer donation etc. but just as deer etc. travel on their own and upon occurrence of purush on left-right , they become nimitta for future knowledge of sukh-dukh. But they are incapable of giving sukh-dukh; in the same way the planets move themselves and upon coincidental conjunction of person, they become cause for future knowledge of sukh-dukh but they do not have capability of imparting sukh-dukh.

Some carry out poojan of those planets etc., even then the desired does not happen and when someone does not do it, even then desired happens ; hence carrying out their poojan etc. is Mithya Bhava.

Here someone says- Giving (donation) is punya only hence it is good only ?

Its reply- Giving for dharma is punya  but this is being given out of greed of sukh and fear of dukh ; hence it is pap only.

Thus Jyotishi Devas are worshipped in different ways, that is all Mithyatva only.

And Devi-Dihari etc. are there, out of them several are Vyantari and Jyotishini, believing  their different forms they worship them; of them several are imaginary; hence imagining their forms they worship them.

-          In this way the poojan of Vyantar etc. was negated.

Negation of poojan of Kshetrapal-Padmavati etc.

Here someone says- Kshetrapal-Dihari-Padmavati etc. Devis and Yaksha-Yakshini etc. who follow Jain faith- there is no harm in worshipping  them?

Its reply- By practicing Sanyam in Jina faith, one becomes venerable but Devas do not have Sanyam at all and they are worshipped believing them to be Samyaktvi but in Bhavan-trio Samyaktva also do not have primacy. If they are worshipped with Samyaktva only then why not worship Devas of Sarvartha Siddhi and Laukantik devas (who are anyway Samyak Drishti)?

You would say- their Jina Bhakti is different.

They are told- The greatness of Jina Bhakti of Saudharma Indra is more, he is Samyak Drishti also; hence leaving him why others  are worshipped?

If you would say- Just as king has Pratihaar (gate keeper) etc.; in the same way Tiirthankara has Kshetrapal etc.

They are told- They do not have powers in Samosharan etc.; this is false belief only. Just as by clearance of Pratihaar( gate keeper) one gets to meet the king; they do not enable meeting with Tirthankara. There the one who has Bhakti, he only attains darshan etc. of Tirthankara; no one is dependent upon anyone else.

Look at Ignorance! With weapons etc. whose form is  Raudra,  they are offered bhakti with singing etc. – if such Raudra form is venerable in Jina faith then  this too becomes like other faiths. With strong Mithyatva bhava, in Jina faith also such contrary practices are followed.

-          Worshipping such kshetrapal etc. is not proper.

There cows-snakes etc. triyanch are there, they visibly appear inferior to self; any one can belittle them , their deplorable state is visibly seen. Trees, fire, water etc. are sthavar; they are in even more inferior state than that of Tiryanch.

And weapons, ink bottle etc. are non conscious , they are visibly seen to be inferior in all capabilities; in them even Upachar of reverence is not possible; hence their worship is great Mithyatva bhava. With their worship either directly or with inference, no benefit appears to be attained; hence worshipping them is not appropriate.

In this way the worshipping – believing of all KuDevas is prohibited.

Look at  glory of Mithyatva!  In salutation to one lower than self in  Lok, they believe themselves to be inferior and out of Moha  in worshipping even stones they do not realise own degeneration. And in Lok the one which serves their objectives,  they are served but with how with KuDevas my objective would be served? – without considering it, with Moha, they serve KuDevas.

While serving KuDevas, there are thousands of obstacles, which are not counted and if with fruition of some punya, the desired is attained then they say- with their service this deed was accomplished. And without service of KuDevas the desired deeds which are accomplished- they are not counted and if some undesired occurs then they say- since they were not served; hence undesired occurred.

They do not consider- If the desired-undesired were under their control then those who worship them would be benefited and those who do not worship, they would not be benefited, but this is not seen. For ex. in spite of  reverence of Sheetala , son etc. have been seen  to die; some one without believing also survives ; hence belief of Sheetala was not meaningful at all.

In this way the belief of all KuDevas is not meaningful at all.

Here someone says- If it is not meaningful then let it be , but there is no harm in their acceptance also?

Its reply- If it were not harmful then why would we negate it? But due to strengthening of Mithyatva etc. the Moksha Marga becomes more inaccessible – this is the biggest harm and with pap bandh future dukh is attained- this too is harm.

Here it is asked- Mithyatva etc. bhavas occur due to Atattva shraddhan etc. and pap bandh occurs due to sinful deeds hence with their acceptance how Mithyatva etc. and Pap bandh would be accrued?

Its reply- Firstly believing other dravya to be good or bad itself is Mithya since no dravya is friend-foe of anyone and the buddhi of good-bad is found in them, its reason  is punya-pap ; hence do such that pap bandh does not happen and punya bandh occurs.

And if the certainty of karma fruition is also not there then one would make efforts for conjunction-separation of external reasons for good-bad, but by acceptance of KuDeva, the buddhi of good-bad is not eliminated; instead it enhances which results in pap bandh only and punya bandh does not accrue.

There Kudeva are not seen to give wealth etc. to someone or getting someone freed; hence these external reasons are also not there; why they are believed ? – When buddhi is highly deluded, with not a bit of shraddhan-gyan of Jiva etc.  tattvas and the raga-dwesha are highly intense , then those which are not reasons, they too are believed to be cause of good-bad, then the belief of KuDevas takes place. With bhava of such strong Mithyatva, the Moksha Marga becomes extremely inaccessible.

Continued…..

MokshaMargPrakashak …16

 

The Contrary form of Dharma

The ‘ form of dharma’ is also described differently. The unity of Samyak darshan-Gyan-Charitra is Moksha Marg , that only is dharma but they describe its form differently; the same is told-

Tattvartha Shraddhan is Samyak Darshan, but that is not prime. Whichever way they describe the Arahant, Deva, Sadhu, Guru, Daya, Dharma, the shraddhan of same is called as Samyak Darshan. There firstly the form of Arahant etc. are described differently but with that shraddhan alone without having Tattva shraddhan, how can samyaktva be attained? Hence their assertion is Mithya.

If the shraddhan of Tattvas is also told as ‘Samyaktva’, then there also  the  Shraddhan is of Tattvas without  objective. The form of Jiva in Gunasthana-Margana etc., Ajiva in Anu-Skandh etc. form, levels of Pap-punya, Avirati etc. form Asravas, vrita etc. form Samvar, Tapa etc. form Nirjara, Prakriti etc. form bandh, divisions of siddha with Ling, form of Moksha – the way they have been described in their shastras , learning it the same way and believing that words of Kevali are Praman- with such Tattvas shraddhan they believe attainment of Samyaktva.

There we ask- Dravya Lingi Muni going to Graveyak has such shraddhan or not? If he does then why is he called as Mithya Drishti? And if not then he too has accepted Jain Ling with Dharma Buddhi, why did he not realise the Devas etc. ? And he too has shastra knowledge, then why did he not know the divisions of Jivas etc.? He does not have intent of other faith in the least, then why did he not get conviction  of Arahant preachment?

Hence he does have such Shraddhan but he does not have Samyaktva, while Naraki, Bhogbhoomia, Tiryanch etc. do not have nimitta for attaining such shraddhan , even then they have Samyaktva for long; hence even without such shraddhan they have Samyaktva.

Therefore the form of ‘Samyak Shraddhan’ is not this . The real form would be described later, know from there.

The practice of their shastras is called as ‘Samyak Gyan’ but Dravya Lingi Muni in spite of having practice of shastra is said to have Mithya Gyan while Asanyat Samyak Drishti has knowledge of sensory subjects even then he is said to have Samyak Gyan.

Hence this is not the form of Samyak Gyan . The real form would be described later, know from there.

And with following of AnuVrita-MahaVrita etc. form Shravak-Yati dharma described by them, they are said to attain Samyak Charitra  but firstly the form of Vrita is described differently which has been narrated earlier in Guru description. There Dravya Lingi in spite of having Maha vrita etc. does not have Samyak Charitra, where as according to their faith , the householder has Samyak Charitra  even without acceptance of Maha Vrita etc.

Hence the form of Samyak Charitra is not this; the real form would be described later.

Here they say- Dravya Lingi did not have above mentioned Shraddhan etc. internally; only externally; therefore Samyaktva etc. were not attained.

Its answer- If it is not internal and adopted only externally then he has adopted with deception and with deceit how can he go to Graveyak? He would go to Narak etc. The bandh occurs with internal manifestations; hence without internal manifestations of Jain dharma, the attainment of Graveyak is not possible.

There  ‘Shubhopayoga of Vrita etc. results in bandh of Deva’ and the same is believed to be Moksha Marga. Hence the bandh marg and moksha marg are one and same which is Mithya.

In the same way in Vyavahara dharma different contradictions are narrated.

‘There is no pap in killing the abuser’- they say so, but the other faith abuser were there in times of Tirthankara etc, who were not killed by Indra etc. If it was not pap then why Indra etc. would  not have killed them? And for the idol etc. ornaments are made but the image was installed to enhance Veetrag bhava; by making ornaments etc. , like idols of other faiths , these are also same. How far we can tell? Thus several descriptions are contrary.

In this way know the shwetamber faith as imaginary. Here with contrary narration of Samyak darshan etc. the Mithya Darshan only is nourished; hence one should not have shraddhan of them.

Consideration of Dhoondhak faith

There, amongst the Shwetambers only the Dhoodhak (Sthanakvasi) have appeared. They believe themselves to be real Dharmatma, which is delusion. How? That is told-

Several after adopting attire get to be called as ‘Sadhu’, but even in accordance with their Granth the means of Vrita, Samiti, Gupti etc. are not apparent. Look! They take vow of sarva savadyayog renunciation by means of mind-speech-body in the form of doing-getting done-endorsing the deed ; but later they do not follow it. They give ordination to young boys, ignorant agyanis, shudras also.

They practice renunciation but while renouncing they do not consider what they are renouncing ? Later they do not follow it and everyone believes them to be Sadhu.

He says again- Later when Dharma buddhi arises then it would be beneficial for him?

Then we say- Earlier the one giving ordination, in spite of knowing that the promise would be broken, the vow was given and later after taking vow he broke it; who is responsible for that Pap? And what is the surety for being Dharmatma later?

There the one who after accepting dharma of sadhu, does not practice it properly, he should be called Sadhu or not ? If he is called sadhu then all those  Sadhus who adopt ‘Muni’ name and are corrupt, they should all be called ‘Sadhu’ and if not called Sadhu then their Sadhu-ness does not remain.

The one you accept as Sadhu based upon conduct, that is practiced by some rare one; why do you believe all  as Sadhu?

Someone says- The one who follows true conduct, we shall accept him as Sadhu; and not accept others.

We ask them- In one Sangh (group) there are several having attire, there the one you believe as having true conduct, does he accept others as Sadhu or not? If he accepts then he is greater non-shraddhani than yourselves, how can he be called venerable? And if he does not accept then why does he treat them as sadhu? And you do not accept them as Sadhu  and keeping them in Sangh, making others accept them as sadhu, make others as non-shraddhani – why do you carry out such deceit?

And the one whom you do not accept as sadhu, then you would tell other jivas also as follows- ‘Do not accept them as sadhu’, this causes contradiction in dharma practice; there the one you accept as Sadhu, with him also there is contradiction since he accepts him as Sadhu. And the one whom you believe to have true conduct, there also if you consider then he too does not practice true Muni dharma in reality.

Someone say- they are better than others having other attires; hence we accept them.

Then we say- in other faiths different kinds of attires are possible since there is no prohibition of raga bhava. In this Jain faith the Sadhu name is called to one who follows what is told there.

Here someone says- They practice sheel-sanyam etc., practice tapa also; hence whatever they do, it is better.

Its answer- It is true that practiced dharma even in small quantity is good, but if vow is taken of big dharma and practice little, then with breaking of vow great pap ensues. Just as after taking vow of Upavas (fasting),  someone eats once then in spite of renunciation of taking food several times, with breaking of vow, he is called Papi. In the same  way after taking vow of Muni dharma, someone does not follow some dharma then in spite of having sheel- Sanyam etc. he is called ‘Papi’. Just as with vow of taking food once, he takes food once only then he is Dharmatma only; in the same way with adoption of Shravak state, someone practices some dharma then he is Dharmatma only. Here by accepting higher designation and by  conducting poorly he attains Papi state. By accepting proper state and conducting accordingly the Papi-ness does not accrue; whatever dharma is practiced , that much is good.

Here someone says- Till the end of fifth kaal the presence of four types of Sangh is stated; if these are not called Sadhu then whom should we call?

Its Answer- Just as in this kaal the presence of swan is told but in the known kshetra the swans are not seen, then others are not accepted as swans. Only with characteristics of swans they are accepted as swans. In the same way in this kaal the existence of some sadhus is told and in the known kshetra  they are not seen , then others are not accepted as Sadhu; with characteristics of sadhu only they are accepted as sadhu. If upon matching characteristics they are accepted then here also in the same way accept them and if without matching characteristics they are accepted then other  KuLingis are there, they also should  be accepted as Sadhu- such anomaly occurs which is not acceptable.

Someone says- In this fifth kaal the sadhu state is like this only, then show us the reference to such Siddhant; if without Siddhant you accept it then it is Pap. In this way with several arguments, they cannot be treated as sadhu and without being Sahdu, accepting them as Guru results in Mithya darshan since with acceptance of true Sadhu only  as Guru, Samyak Darshan can be  attained.

Negation of different practices of Pratima holder Shravak

There the Shravak dharma is accepted differently – in spite of Trasa Himsa and sthool lies etc., which are without objective- with such little renunciation they are called as Desha-Vriti but he is indulging in activities of Trasa Ghat etc.; whereas in Desha Vrita Gunasthana they are called as eleven avirati  in which trasa ghat is not possible. And the eleven Pratima divisions are that of Sharvak, in the Shwetamber there is no Shravak holder of 10^th -11^th Pratima, but he is Sadhu.

When asked, they say- The Pratima holder Shravak cannot be there in this kaal, but look! ‘ Shravak dharma is difficult and Muni Dharma is simple’ -such contradiction is told. And 11^th  Pratima holder has little possessions while Muni can have more possessions – such words are not possible.

Then they say- This Pratima after practicing for short while is given up, but if this deed is superior then why should dharma buddhi shravak give up superior activity and adopt inferior activity- this is not possible. 

In spite of offering veneration of KuDeva-KuGuru, they are called as Shravak.

There they say- We do not offer veneration with spirit of dharma; it is worldly Vyavahara, where as in Siddhant their adoration- worshipping is called as ‘transgression of Samyaktva’ but for being called good from house holders, in spite of their worshipping they do not oppose it.

You would say- Out of Fear, shyness and intrigue they offer veneration.

Then they are told- For the same reasons, in spite of practicing Kusheel etc. also do not call it Pap; internally pap should be known. In this way all conduct would be contradictory.

Look! Like Mithyatva , there is no importance of renouncing great Pap where as by declaring himsa of  Vayu-kaya jivas, the importance is given to renunciation of ‘speaking with open mouth’ but such preachment is  not in sequential order. Dharma has several parts, in that the compassion towards other jivas is primary, which is not considered. There is no importance to filtering of water, cleaning of cereals, non consumption of wrong items, non practice of himsa form Vyavahara etc. parts of compassion.

Negation of Mouth- cover etc.

There the usage of Mouth Cover, doing less Shauch etc. activities are given primacy but with the usage of dirty mouth cover due to saliva, jivas get generated, there is no effort towards them and himsa of vayu is protected-they say. But from nose also lot of Vayu is released which is not protected. As per their shastras the  mouth cover is used in speaking only then why is it always kept? When they speak, then they should protect.

If they say- we tend to  forget then they are told- If this much also is not remembered then how can other dharma practices be carried out? And about  doing less shauch etc.- the necessary shauch is carried out by Muni also ; hence house holder should do necessary shauch applicable to him. In mating  with wife etc., without shauch,  engaging in activities of Samayik etc. results in disrespect, non cleanliness form pap.

-          Hence the ones they call as primary, even there also it is not taken care. There several right means of compassion are practiced, renunciation of greens is carried out, less water is dropped, these we do not oppose.

Refutation of Negation of Idol worship

 There following Ekant of Ahimsa, they reject the worship of idol- chaityalaya etc. but as per their own shastras there is narration of Pratima etc. They insist upon eliminating it. In Bhagwati Sutra there is description of Riddhi Dhari Muni who goes to Meru mountain etc. and worships  Chaitya. Chaitya implies idol/Pratima.

Then they assert – The word chaitya has different meanings of gyan etc.; hence different meaning is there but not Pratima. Then we ask them- In MeruGiri, Nandishwara dweep the worship of Chaitya was performed; there how can it mean worship of gyan etc.? Worship of gyan etc. is possible everywhere. Where the chaitya is suitable for worship and which is not possible everywhere, there the worshipping is meaningful. Hence the meaning is ‘Pratima’ only. Therefore the meaning of Chaitya is ‘Pratima’ only which  is famous. With this meaning ‘Chaityalaya ‘ name is possible; why do you insist in removing it?

There after going to Nandishwara dweep etc. they carry out worship of Deva etc. , its narration is seen in their granths in different places. In the Lok  where ever the description of uncreated idol is there, its creation is beginningless. This creation is not for enjoyment or intrigues etc. and in the places of Indra etc. the creation is not possible without having reason; hence what do the Indra etc. do after seeing it?

-          Either they would be getting detached  after seeing such creation without purposes in their temples or they may feel sad  but it is not possible that after seeing good creation, they enjoy sensory subjects; but with the idol of Arahant, Samyak Drishti would cultivate their sensory subjects – this too is not possible; hence they engage in its bhakti only- this only is possible. 

In their scripture there is narration of SooryabhDeva, there special description is made of the worship of idol; to hide it they say- it is the duty of Devas only; that is true but the result of such duty is either dharma or pap? If it is dharma then instead of doing pap elsewhere,  dharma was carried out ; how can it be called as same as others? It is right deed only. If it is pap then why bhakti was carried out.

Then if they say- Such act is carried out in Devas; not in Manushyas, since in Manushyas by creating idols Himsa takes place.

Then in their own shastras it is stated- Just as Sooryabh Deva carried out Poojan of idol etc. the same way was carried out by Draupadi Rani; hence Manushyas also perform such duty.

Here a thought came- If there was no practice of chaityalaya or idol, then how Draupadi carried out poojan of idol. If practice was there then its creator were dharmatma or papi? – if they were dharmatma then such deed being carried out by house holder was appropriate and if they were papi then since there was no objective of enjoyments, why were they created?

Drupadi carried out poojan etc. – whether it was intrigue or dharma? If it was intrigue then she was great Papini, how can intrigues be done  in dharma? And if it was dharma then it is alright for others also to carry out pooja of idol .

There they apply such Mithya Logic- for ex.- with sthapana (installation) of Indra the deed of Indra is not established; in the same way with idol of Arahant the deed of Arahant is not successful. If Arahant believing you to be bhakta gave benefits then we would accept it,  but they are Veetrag ; this Jiva attains Shubha results by own Bhakti form Bhavas.

Just as by observing the idols of wood-stone of women , if one  manifests in corrupted form then he accrues pap bandh; in the same way, by observing the metal-stone idol of Arahant , if he worships with dharma buddhi then why attainment of Shubha would not happen?

There they say- we shall generate Shubha without idol by attachment towards Arahant.

They are told- By observing shape the type of bhava which is generated, that is not attained by indirect recollection ; Hence in this lok also those desirous of women make pictures of women; hence with recourse to idol with special bhakti , special Shubha is attained.

Then someone says- Just look at the idol, but what is the purpose in poojan etc. ?

Its answer- Just as by creating the shape of some jiva , with angry bhavas  harms it then he accrues pap of the causing himsa of that jiva. And by creating shape of someone with dwesha buddhi if he harms it then he accrues results of the same nature . In the same way by creating shape of Arahant, with Dharma buddhi he worships it then in accordance with Shubha bhava which was generated by the poojan , same type of result is attained. With high interest , due to lack of direct darshan, the poojan etc. is carried out by making shape – with such dharma interest, it results in great punya.

There such wrong argument is carried out- For the one who has renounced some thing, keeping same thing in front of him is making fun; hence with Chandan etc. the poojan of Arahant is not appropriate.

Its answer- After attaining Muni state all possessions were renounced, after attaining Keval Gyan Indra etc. created Samosharan etc. of Tirthankara Deva , made Chhatra-Chanvar etc., was it fun or bhakti? If it was fun then Indra was great papi , which is not possible; if it was bhakti then in poojan also bhakti only is carried out.

  Keeping renounced item in front of chhadmastha is making fun since it causes unhappiness to him. In front of Kevali or idol with devotion keeping best things is not wrong, it does not result in unhappiness to them; the devotion benefits jivas only.

Then they say- In making idols, chaityalaya etc. and in Poojan etc. himsa accrues and dharma is ahimsa; hence believing dharma in himsa is great pap; therefore we prohibit such activities.

Its answer- In their own shastras it is stated-  ‘…’

Here it is told that ‘Benediction’, ‘pap’ and ‘both’ – these three shastras were heard and known. There ‘both’ would occur with mixing of pap and benediction ; hence such deeds are also eligible.

There we ask- With respect to only dharma, ‘ both’ is weaker but with respect to ‘pap’, ‘both’ is good or bad? – If it is bad then how can it be called worst than ‘Pap’ having some part of ‘benediction’ ? If it is good then it would be better to do this than ‘pap’.

And with logic this only  is possible- Just as some one after renunciation does not make house etc. and engages in activities of Samayik etc. then giving up those activities engaging in making idols, poojan etc. is not right but if someone makes house for self then compared to that,  the one getting chaitya made is not inferior. There is Himsa but compared to one making house his greed and attraction towards pap is less hence instead of doing business etc. activities the poojan etc. activities are not inferior.

In this way those who are not Tyagi and who spend their money in pap, for them making chaityalaya is alright and those who cannot engage the Upayoga in Samayik etc. activities without flaw, for them engaging in poojan etc. is not denied.

Then you would say- Why should he not do Samayik etc. activities without flaw ? Why should he waste time in other activities of dharma ?

Its reply- If by giving up pap alone by body the flawlessness was attained then that surely would have been done. But due to  pap in manifestations the flaws are generated; hence those who are not able to manifest in Samayik etc. form without recourse, engage their upayoga in poojan etc. activities where the upayoga gets engaged with different types of recourse. If Upayoga is not engaged there then it would wander in pap activities which is harmful; then such practice is better.

There you say- By engaging in Himsa for dharma great pap is accrued; elsewhere in Himsa the pap is less.

Then we say- Firstly this is not a statement of Siddhant  and it is not logical. Since by such acceptance, Indra carries out abhishek with lot of water in Janma Kalyanak; in Samosharan Devas engage in flowers showering, chanvar movement etc. which make them great papi.

If you say- this is their Vyavahara only.

Then we say- The act does not remain without giving result. If it is pap, then Indra etc. are Samyak Drishti, how do they engage in such deeds? If it is dharma then why prohibit?

Then we ask you- Kings go for offering reverence to Tirthankara, for offering reverence to  Sadhu also they go long distance. For listening to Siddhant etc. activities they travel, in the path the himsa is accrued.  They provide food to Co-dharmis; upon death of Sadhu then carry out his Sanskar also, Upon ordination of Sadhu they carry out celebration , etc. such practices are seen even now. Hence there also Himsa is accrued  but all these acts are for dharma; there is no other objective.

If there also  great pap is accrued then in the past period such deeds were performed which should be negated and even now house holders perform  such activities, they should be relinquished. If it accrues dharma then for the purpose of dharma why do you call small Himsa as great pap to create delusion.

Hence accepting this way is appropriate- just as with less expenditure lot of money is earned then that act is suitable; in the same way with less Himsa etc. form pap, if lot of dharma is generated, then that act is suitable. If with greed of little money he spoils the deed then he is foolish; in the same way with fear of small Himsa , giving up great dharma would result in pap only.

Just as someone spends lot of  money and earns little with it then he is foolish only; in the same way if someone generates lot of Pap with lot of Himsa and does not engage in little bit of Bhakti etc. dharma then he is Papi only.

And just as without expenditure, if money is being earned and he spends money then he is foolish , in the same way with Upayoga being engaged in  flawless activity, if he engages upayoga  in sinful activity then it is not appropriate.

In this way upon observing the condition of own manifestations , “what is appropriate, should be done,” ekant stand is not suitable. And only external Ahimsa is not part of dharma ; the reduction of ragas etc. is main part of dharma ; hence the way the ragas etc. get reduced in the manifestations, such acts should be done.

There without having practice of AnuVrita etc. for the house holder, the conduct of Samayik etc. activities is carried out , but Samayik is carried out after attainment of  equanimity bhava without raga-dwesha ; merely by reading lesson and sitting-standing it does not get accomplished.

You would say- It is better than doing other activities.

This is true but in Samayik Path the vow is taken that with mind-speech-body I shall not engage in sin , nor get it done, but the vikalpa is present in the mind anyway and in speech-body also sometimes other tendency is there , this leads to breaking the vow. Hence instead of breaking the promise , it is better not to make the promise since the loss of promise is great pap.

Then we ask you- 1.  Someone does not take vow and reads lesson, knowing its meaning , he engages Upayoga in it. And 2. Someone takes vow but does not fulfil it properly and reads lesson of Prakrit etc. but does not know the meaning , hence without knowing the meaning the Upayoga is not engaged and it wanders elsewhere.

Out of the two who is better dhramatma? – If you call the first one then why do you not preach the same? And if say the second then whether he did not accrue pap due to  breakage of promise? And in accordance with manifestations the dharma-ness was not measured ; it was in accordance with reading of lesson etc.

Therefore the way the own Upayoga gets purified, such activities should be carried out; the one which can  be fulfilled such promises should be made; those lessons should be read whose meaning is known. Just by procedure there is no benefit.

There ‘Pratikraman’ name is given  to ‘ previous fault rejection’ but just by saying so – the misdeeds carried out do not get rejected; the misdeeds carried out are rejected by manifestations of that nature ; hence just lesson is not meaningful.

And in Pratikraman lesson the meaning is that the flaws which have been carried out in 12 Vritas etc. should become Mithya , but without engaging in Vrita itself, how can their Pratikraman be possible? – The one who does not fast, if he engages in Pratikraman  of the faults carried out in the fast , then it is impossible only. Hence reading such lesson is meaningless.

And in Proshadh also after taking vow in accordance with Samayik they do not follow it ; hence the above described fault only applies. There Proshadh means festival but even on the day of the festival, for long he engages in Pap activity, later he becomes Proshadh -holder. There the period for which it was carried out, engaging in that practice for that long is not wrong but giving it Proshadh name is wrong. By being sin free in total festival only is ‘Proshadh’. If by engaging in short period itself is called Proshadh then Samayik also can be called as Proshadh ; otherwise show proof in shastra that this is the period of minimum Proshadh. Its purpose  appears to be deluding people by giving it big name.

Then in the lesson of Akhadi someone reads and someone else practices but in the lesson the words are ‘ I renounce’; hence the one who renounces , he only should read that lesson. If he cannot speak the lesson then speak in local language, but procedure should be followed.

There primacy is that of giving- practicing vows but in following properly there is weakness and there is no rationality of the bhavas being pure. With manifestations of Aart forms or greed etc. by engaging in fast, believes dharma is carried out but the result is attained by manifestations.

-          Thus several imaginary things are done which  are not possible in Jain Dharma.

-          In this way this Shwetamber faith is there in Jain , that also describes the Devas etc., tattvas, and MokshMarg etc. in other ways; hence it is propagator of Mithya Darshan etc. ; therefore it  should be rejected.

The form of True Jina Dharma is described later, engaging in Moksha Marga with that is appropriate; practicing that would result in benediction.

End of fifth chapter pertaining to description of Other Faiths

Continued….

MokshaMargPrakashak …15

 

Consideration of Shwetamber Faith

Due to defects of time, imaginary creations have been carried out in Jina faith also by the Jivas indulging in Kashaya; that is told here – Shwetamber faith followers believe that the sutras written by someone else are created by Ganadhar. 

There we ask them- The Acharang etc. were created by Ganadhar that are presently found with you, they were made  to this size only or were they having large quantity? If they were this much only, then in your own shastras the size of Acharang etc. verses is 18000 etc. is told, that you explain.

What is the size of Pada? – If each sentence is called as Pada then the Padas would be much more than the stated Praman and if it is ‘Praman pada’ then each pada has about 51 crore shloka, but these shastras are very small hence that is not  possible. Further in Jinagam the Praman of Dashvaikalik etc. is told to be less than Acharang etc. but in your place their Praman is told to be more, how is it possible?

You would  say- Acharang etc. were large; due to defects of time, by taking out sutras from there, these shastras have been created. There, firstly those broken granths are not Praman, and this is rule that when a large granth is created then all the description is in detail and when small granth is created then all is described in brief but the chain is not lost. If out of a large granth some part is removed then the context would be lost and chain would be broken; but in your sutras the chain does not appear to be lost and continuity remains.

And compared to other poets the buddhi of Ganadhar would be more  hence in the granth created by them, few words would have lot of meaning , but here the seriousness like other poets is also not present.

The one who creates Granth, he does not write his own name like ‘ he says’ , but “ I say’ – thus he writes. But in your sutras ‘ Hey Gautam!’ and ‘Gautam says’- such words are there but such words are only possible when someone else is author; hence these sutras are not Gandhar created; but written by someone else. You wish to establish the imaginary creation in the name of Ganadhar but intelligent people accept only after examination ; just by say so they do not accept.

They say thus also- In accordance with sutras of Ganadhar some dashpoorvadhari has created these sutras.

We ask- If new granth has been created then new name should have been given, why they gave names of Ang etc.? Just as with the name of some big businessman, some other businessman runs his business- this is such a deed. The true person should give it different name like done in Digamber Granths and stated them to be following the tradition of previous Granths; in the same way you should have also done. Keeping the names of Ang etc. why delusion of Ganadhar’s authorship  was generated? Hence these words are not that of Ganadhar or Poorvadhari. There for generating confidence in these sutras, those which are in accordance with Jina faith, they are true only; Digambers also state the same. The imaginary part is seen to have contradiction of present and past and opposition with respect to Pratyaksh etc. Praman. The same is described-

Negation of Salvation with Other Ling-

There, attainment of salvation of other Lingis, house holders, women and chandal etc. shudras is accepted, which is not feasible. The togetherness of Samyak Darshan-Gyna-Charitra is Moksha Marga but they (shwetambers) describe the form of Samyak Darshan as follows- “…..”

Meaning- Arahant Bhagwan is my Deva, supreme sadhu are my Guru, the Tattva described by Jinendra Deva is dharma- such samyaktva I have accepted.

Hence, how can the other Lingis accept Arahant Deva- Sadhu-Guru and Jina described Tattva ? When other Lingi does not even have Samyaktva then how can he attain Moksha?

If you say- With internal shraddhan, they have samyaktva; hence by praising etc. of opposite Ling holder is also described as contravention of Samyaktva but after true shraddhan how can he remain holder of opposite Ling? After attainment of shraddhan , with acceptance of MahaVrita etc. Samyak Charitra is attained, how would it be possible in other Ling? If other Ling too has Samyak Charitra then Jain Ling and other Ling would be the same.

Hence telling that Other Ling can attain Moksha is Mithya.

Negation of Salvation of House holder

 There they say that house holder can attain Moksha. But Samayik Charitra ( Division of Samyak Charitra) is attained by renunciation of Himsa etc. all the SavadyaYoga (violence towards all jivas) – how is it possible for householder to attain it ?

If you say- internally renunciation is attained.

Then we say – there the renunciation is with all the three Yog only; hence how renunciation with Kaya Yog was attained?

If in spite of keeping external possessions etc. also MahaVrita is attained then in MahaVritas the vow is taken for renunciation of external possessions only; without renunciation of external possessions the Maha Vrita is not attained and without Maha vrita, the sixth etc. Gunasthana is not attained then how can Moksha be possible?

Hence telling that House Holder gets Moksha is Mithya statement.

Negation of Women Salvation

There the women are said to attain Moksha but those who cannot even carry out pap eligible for attainment of seventh hell itself, how can they have Shuddha bhava eligible for Moksha? Since whose bhavas are strong, he only can generate supreme pap and supreme dharma  and women cannot carry out dhyan in isolation fearlessly and renunciation of all possessions etc.

If you say- ‘ In one samaya Purush Vedi , Stree vedi and Napunsak Vedi can attain Siddhi ‘ – this is written in Siddhant; hence we accept Moksha for Stree. But whether it is Bhava Vedi or Dravya Vedi? If it is Bhava Vedi then we accept it and if it is Dravya vedi then in the Lok Purush-Stree Vedi are amply seen and Napunsak are rarely seen then how is it possible for so many Napunsak to attain  Moksha in one samaya? Hence the statement is not feasible from  aspect of dravya Veda.

If you say- Upto ninth gunasthana Veda has been told, that is from aspect of Bhava veda only; if it were from aspect of dravya veda then upto 14^th gunasthana the existence of Veda is possible.

Hence attainment of Stree Moksha is Mithya.

Negation of Salvation of Shudra

There Shudras are said to attain Moksha, but how can householders give food etc. respectfully to Chandal etc.? This is contrary to Lok practices and those having lower Kula cannot have superior manifestations ; hence fruition of Neech Gotra Karma is only upto fifth Gunasthana ; without climbing higher gunasthana how can Moksha be attained?

If you say- After acceptance of Sanyam, the fruition of Uccha Gotra is told.

Then we say- If from aspect of  acceptance or non acceptance  of Sanyam, the fruition of Uccha-Neech Gotra was decided- then Asanyami manushya-tirthankara-kshatriya etc. would also have fruition of neech gotra. If you say that fruition of their Uccha gotra is from aspect of Kula, then chandal etc. also should be said to have fruition of neech gotra from aspect of kula but its existence in even in your own sutras has been  described upto fifth  gunasthana only; hence by making imaginary statements there would be contradiction between earlier and later.

Hence telling Shudras to be attaining moksha is Mithya.

In this way they have told all to get Moksha; its objective is that ‘ all should be enticed with promise of Moksha so as to propagate own imaginary faith’. But upon consideration, all this appears to be Mithya.

Negation of Accheras

There, in their shastras Accheras are described. They say – with the nimitta of Hundavasarpini Kaal they are produced, they should not be disturbed. Although with defect of Kaal several things happen, but contrary to Praman they do not happen. If contrary to Praman is also feasible then flower of sky, horns of donkey etc. also would be possible, but that is not possible; hence what they call as Acchera is contrary to Praman.

Why? That is told- Vardhaman Jina, for some period remained in the womb of Brahman woman and later he was kept in womb of Kshatriya woman- this is said. But keeping someone’s foetus with someone else does not appear directly feasible, nor can it be conceived with inference etc. and it is said to happen to Tirthankara then the Garbh-Kalyanak was in some house and Janma-Kalyanak was in some other house. For some days the shower of jewels was in some house and for some days in another house. Sixteen dream were seen by someone and son  was born to someone else, all these appear impossible. There mothers are two and the father was one Brahman only, but in Janma-Kalyanak he was not honoured; other imaginary father was honoured.

In this way telling Tirthankara to have two fathers appears highly contradictory. For the holder of supreme state, even hearing of such words is not proper. When Tirthankara himself had such a state, then everywhere keeping the foetus of other woman in another womb would be acceptable, just as Vaishnava describe production of son-daughter in different ways, it would be like that. Look, even in this inferior kaal also it is not possible, then how was it possible then? Hence it is Mithya.

There Malli Tirthankara is called a girl but in the assembly of Muni, Deva etc. the positioning of woman and giving preachment is not possible and stree paryaya is inferior, she cannot be holder of supreme Tirthankara state. And Tirthankara is naked ling only, but the nakedness of woman is not feasible; upon consideration, all these are seen impossible.

And ‘The Bhogbhoomi jiva of Hari Kshetra went to Narak’  but in the description of bandh, the Bhogbhoomi jivas have bandh only of Deva Gati and deva Ayu, how could he go to Narak.

In Siddhant even in infinite kaal which is rarely possible , such things are  described. For ex. – upto third Narak the presence of Tirthankara Prakriti is told but the bondage of Bhagbhoomi jivas with Narak-Ayu-Gati is not mentioned; there Kevali do not forget; hence it is Mithya.

In this way all Acchere should be known as impossible.

Then they say- Do not disturb  them, since the liars tell this way only.

If you say- Just in Digamber the daughter of Tirthankara, loss of pride of Chakravarty etc. activities are told to occur due to flaw of kaal; in the same way these happened, but these activities are not contrary to Praman; for others it used to happen, it happened for Mahants also hence it is declared as flaw of kaal. Kidnapping of foetus etc. acts, are contrary to Pratyaksh  and inference etc.; hence how can those be possible?

There other statements also are told contrary to Praman- for ex. they say that in Sarvartha Siddhi the Devas raise questions in mind ; Kevali answer with his mind but when the subject of mind of ordinary jiva cannot be known without ManahParyay Gyan then how can that of the mind of Kevali be known to Devas of Sarvartha Siddhi? And Kevali has absence of Bhava Mind, his Dravya Mind is corporeal shape form alone, who gave the answer? Hence this is Mithya.

In this way several statements are given contrary to Praman; hence their Agam should be known to be imaginary.

Shwetamber Faith declared contrary forms of ‘Deva-Guru-Dharma’

The followers of Shwetamber faith describe the form of Deva-Guru-Dharma in contradictory forms-

Contrary form of Deva

There the Kevali is said to have hunger etc. flaws but this form of deva is contrary since with thirst etc. restlessness is experienced, then how can infinite sukh be possible?

And if you say- the body experiences hunger; soul does not take that form.

Then we say- why do you say ‘ to satisfy the hunger, food was taken’ ? When he is suffering with hunger then only food is consumed.

Then you would say- Just as with fruition of karma the travel  occurs; in the same way food is taken.

There we say- Travel occurs due to fruition of Vihayogati Prakriti but that is not remedy to a suffering and it is seen to happen to jivas without desire also but food is accepted upon suffering of hunger and not fruition of prakriti alone  and soul instigates with wind etc. for swallowing; hence the eating is not like travel.

If you say- With fruition of SataVedaniya food is accepted; this too is not feasible.  The jiva who is suffering with hunger etc., later with consumption of food etc. if he is happy then  his food etc. are said to be due to fruition of sata. The acceptance of food etc. occurs automatically with fruition of satavedaniya – it is not so; if it were so then the fruition of sata vedaniya primarily occurs to Devas , then why don’t they continuously take food ? And Great Muni engage in fasting etc., for them also the fruition  of sata and the one taking food continuously could have fruition of Asata also.

Hence just as without desire, with fruition of Vihayogati the travel is possible; in the same way without desire, only with fruition of Sata Vedaniya , consumption of food is not possible.

Then they say- In Siddhant Kevali is said to have hunger etc. eleven Parishah (hardships); hence to him the presence of hunger is possible and without food etc. how can it subside? Hence it is accepted for them to have food etc.

Its answer- The fruition of Karma prakriti has divisions of weak-strong forms. There with fruition of extremely weak, the effect of the fructified deed is not experienced ; hence primarily it is described as absent, only from aspect of harmony its presence is told. For ex. – in 9^th gunasthana the fruition of Vedas etc. is weak, there the Maithun activity is not explicit; hence it is called as Bramhacharya only, from aspect of harmony, the presence of Maithun is accepted. In the same way the Kevali has fruition of Asata which is very weak , since in each Kandak the Anubhag is infinitesimal part- in the presence of such several anubhag kandaks  and due to guna-sankraman the anubhag of AsataVedaniya is extremely weak; with its fruition such hunger is not explicit which weakens the body and in absence of Moha the hunger etc. generated dukh is also not there; hence it is called as absence of hunger and only for harmony  its presence is told.

And you said- without food etc. how can it hunger be subsided?

But if the hunger is of such type that it can be subsided with food etc. only, then the fruition is not weak. Deva, Bhogbhoomi jivas also with weak fruition, after long time accept some food. In his case to fruition is extremely weak , then to him the absence of food is possible.

Then he says- The bodies of Devas and Bhogbhoomias is such only that they get only very little hunger after long period of time, but their bodies are Audarik of Karma Bhoomi , hence how can  their bodies remain without food  for period little less than Koti Poorva in supreme form?

Its answer- The body of Devas etc. is such only with the nimitta of karma only. Here with attainment of Keval Gyan such karma was fructified and such body was attained that the hunger is not revealed at all. Just as before attaining Keval Gyan the hair-nails used to grow, now they do not grow; the shadow used to be there, now it is not there; in the body Nigod were there, now they are absent.

In this way in several ways just as state of body got changed; in the same way without food also the body remains as it is – such state also happened. Observe directly! The others due to little old age become weak but their bodies till the end of Ayu do not become weak ; hence there is no  equality  of other Manushya’s and their bodies.

And if you say – The food of Devas etc. itself is such only that with it the hunger of long period gets subsided, but how did their  hunger get eliminated and bodies remained strong?

Then Listen! With weakening of fruition of Asata it got eliminated and at every samaya param-audarik sharir vargana is received, that is nokarma ahar; hence such vargana is received that the hunger etc. do not remain and body does not become weak – from this aspect only in Siddhant, Kevali has been called as Aharak.

There, the  acceptance of cereal etc. form food is not prime cause for strength of body. Look directly! Someone takes little food, his body is very strong ; someone takes lot of food , his body remains weak. And those practicing wind etc. for long time do not take food, the body remains strong and Riddhidhari Munis engage in fasting , even then the body remains strong; whereas  Kevali is bestowed with supreme body, his body remains strong without food etc. then what is the wonder there?

And how can Kevali go for Ahar? How will he beg? And if he goes for Ahar then how can Samosharan remain empty? And if someone else brings it then who will do so? Who will know his mind? In the past there was vow etc. of fasting , how would it be fulfilled? The Antaraya of Jivas are all seen, then how can he consume food? So many contradictions are seen.

Again they say- They accept food but nobody can see it. There the acceptance of food was known as deplorable, then its invisibility is written in Atishaya(wonders) but its disgrace remained; others did not see it, how does it matter? – in this way different contradictions arise.

Now, listen to other points of irrationality – Kevali is said to have Nihar, the disease etc. occurred and they say that someone attacked with TejoLeshya due to which Vardhaman Swamy had diarrhoea which resulted in continuous motions. If Tirthankara Kevali also had fruition of such karma and the Atishaya was not there, then how can he be venerable to Indra etc.? And where does he pass motion and how? – all these are improbable subjects.

There just as chhadmastha with ragas engages in activities , the same way it is described for Kevali- in the preachment of Shri Vardhman Swamy repeatedly he tells ‘Hey Gautam!’ – but he gives divine sermon at his time which is for all; then how could he be addressing Gautam? There the activities of  Namaskar etc. by Kevali are told but without attachment, such reverence is not possible. The reverence towards those having more Guna is possible, but none has gunas more than him then how can that act be carried out?

There the ‘Samosharan was installed in market’ – is told, but how can the Samosharan created by Indra be kept in market? How can such large creation be accommodated in market and why should it be? Whether Indra does not have capability that he has to take recourse to market?

Then they say- Kevali went to give preachment; but giving preachment at home is act with extreme raga and it is not possible for Muni also then how can Kevali do it? In this way there are several kinds of contradictions described by them.

Kevali is adorned with Shuddha Keval Gyna- Darshan and he is free of ragas, for them the activities pertaining to fruition of Aghati karmas occur but their Moha etc. are absent; hence the activities pertaining to application of Upayoga are not possible. The intensity of Pap Prakrit is extremely weak – such weak intensity nobody else has; hence the activities seen to happen for other jivas with the fruition of pap, do not happen for Kevali.

In this way describing the activities of Kevali Bhagwan as those of common Manushya, the form of Deva is described incorrectly.

Contrary Form of Guru

There the form of Guru is described incorrectly- The Muni is said to have clothes etc. fourteen appliances.

There we ask them – Muni is said to be Nirgranth and upon acceptance of Muni state all possessions  of nine kinds are renounced and MahaVrita is accepted, then these clothes etc. are possessions or not? If they are then why they are kept after renunciation and if they are not, then the clothes etc. are kept by householders , they also should not be called possessions? Only gold etc. should be called possession.

If you say- Just as for hunger the food is accepted; in the same way for protection against heat-cold, clothes etc. are accepted.

Then we say- While accepting Muni state, the food was not renounced; possessions were renounced. The collection of cereal etc. is possession but going for food is not possession. The collection of clothes and wearing them is possession – this is well known in the Lok.

You would say- For maintenance of body clothes etc. are kept, the attachment is not there; hence they are not called possessions. Look! In Shraddhan when Samyak Darshan was attained, then itself the mine-ness towards all other dravyas was lost; from that aspect the fourth gunasthana itself can be called free of possessions, but if there is no mine-ness in manifestations then how do you  accept it ? Hence when the acceptance and wearing of clothes etc. is relinquished then only he would be free of possessions.

If you say- If someone takes the clothes away then he does not get angry, they do not sell them upon being hungry, do not indulge in Pramad by wearing clothes and with stability of manifestation  they practice dharma only; hence mine-ness is not there.

Then we say- Even if externally not angry, but when spirit of favourite is there in something, then in its separation there is spirit of loss also. If there is no spirit of loss in its separation then why do you beg for it?

You do not sell it; so just as metal ( money etc.) is not sold knowing it to be degrading self, but just as collection of money is there; in the same way the collection of clothes etc is there. In the Lok for the Jivas desirous of possessions both are acceptable; hence causes of  fear of thief etc. for both are same.

If by attaining stability of manifestation with practice of dharma the possessiveness is not there, then if someone is very cold and by keeping blanket he stabilises the manifestations and practices dharma, then he also can be called possessionless? Then what is the difference between house holder dharma and Muni dharma? 

The one who does not have capability of withstanding hardships, by keeping possessions he practices dharma, its name is house holder dharma. The one who has pure manifestations who does not become perturbed with hardships, he does not keep possessions  and practices dharma, that is named Muni dharma- this is the difference.

You would say- with hardship of cold etc. why he would not be perturbed?

Then we say- The perturbation occurs with the nimitta of fruition of Moha; there the Muni does not have fruition of three types of Kashaya in sixth gunasthana  and the sarva ghati spardhak of Sanjwalan are not under fruition ; only desh ghati are under fruition  which do not have much power. Just as Vedak -Samyak Drishti has fruition of DeshGhati Samyak Mohaniya , but that cannot harm the Samyaktva ; in the same way with fruition of DeshGhati Sanjwalan , the manifestations cannot be perturbing.

Oh! There is no similarity in the manifestations of Munis and others; all other have fruition of Sarva Ghati and these have fruition of Desh Ghati ; hence their manifestations are not similar to those of others. In this way those who have fruition of sarva ghati, they remain house holder and those who have fruition of desha ghati, they accept Muni dharma since their manifestations are not disturbed by cold etc; hence they do not keep clothes etc.

You would say- In Jain Shastras , the Munis are said to keep fourteen appliances.

They are told- it is told in your shastras only; not in Digamber Jain shastras. There by keeping loin cloth itself he is called 11^th Pratima holder Shravak only.

Hence now you consider- out of the two which is the false statement? Firstly the imaginary words are told by the one  who has Kashaya only since  he only declares higher state in spite of being in lower state. Hence in Digamber with possession of clothes etc. the dharma cannot be done- this is not told but it is called as Shravak dharma. In Shwetamber it is called as Muni dharma; hence in spite of lowly activity, he has  declared higher state, then he  only has Kashaya.

With such imaginary assertions the people keeping clothes with themselves start believing self to be Muni; thus pride Kashaya was nourished and others were shown the attainment of higher state with simple activity ; hence lot of people engaged in it; thus the imaginary faiths have been created this way only. Thus being passionate with clothes etc. the Muni state is declared, which is contrary from aspect of previous argument; therefore these are imaginary words only- know thus.

Then you would say- Just in Digamber also Shastra, Picchi etc. are called appliances, in the same way we have fourteen appliances?

Its answer- The one which helps, that is called as ‘Upakaran’ (appliance). But here for avoidance of pain of cold etc. it is called ‘Upakaran’ then all possession items would be called ‘Upakaran’. What is their objective in dharma? They are means of Pap. In dharma those which assist dharma are called ‘Upakaran’. There shastra- means for gyan, Picchi- means for compassion, Kamandal (pot)– means for shauch; hence they are assistant for dharma. In what way clothes etc. can be assistant for dharma? They are used for comfort of the body.

And listen! If keeping shastra he shows Mahant-ness; if Picchi is used for sweeping; if kamandal is used for drinking water etc. and cleansing, then his shastra etc. are also possessions only. But Munis do not do such deeds; hence the means for dharma are not called as possessions; the means for body enjoyment are called possessions- know thus.

You would say- Kamandal is used for cleansing of the body only but Muni do not keep it with such intent. They engage in reading shastra etc, there if (they are) soiled then it would be disrespect (towards  shastras) and would be deplored in Lok; hence for this dharma they keep Kamandal.

-          Such Picchi etc. are suitable as appliances; it is not right to give clothes as name of ‘Upakaran’.

With desire, dislike etc. form fruition of Moha, if externally perversion is revealed and cold etc. are not tolerated ; therefore for hiding the perversion  and relinquishing the cold etc. the clothes etc. are kept and with fruition of Pride they desire their Mahant-ness also ; hence with imaginary arguments they justify them as Upakaran.

There by begging in different houses, the bringing of food is carried out. They are asked firstly- the begging is part of dharma or pap? If it is part of dharma then  all beggars are dharmatma and if it is part of pap then how is it possible for Muni?

And if you say- If with greed they beg for money etc., then it would be pap; it is for practice of dharma- for maintenance of body they beg for food etc.

Its answer- Dharma is not attained with Ahar etc., it gives sukh for body; hence with extreme greed for sukh of body they beg. If extreme greed were not there then why they would have begged? If people desired to give then they would have given and if not desired to give then they would not have  given. And extreme greed is only pap, then Muni dharma was destroyed; which other dharma he would practice?

Now he says- If there is desire for taking food in the mind and if he does not beg then it becomes deceit Kashaya and since by begging the lowliness is felt therefore out of pride if he does not beg, then it becomes pride Kashaya. The Ahar was required hence asked for it, what is the great greed about it and how does it destroy the Muni dharma? – Tell?

He is told- Just as some businessman has weak desire for earning, he sits in the shop and in the mind there is desire to do business also, but he does not request anyone for giving-taking form business for anything. By himself if someone comes, then upon fulfilment of own constraints, if he conducts business, then he has weak greed and there is no deceit or pride. The deceit and pride Kashaya are experienced when by deceit or  for own greatness, he adopts such farce , but the good businessman does not have such objective; hence it is not called deceit-pride.

In the same way the Munis have weak desire to take Ahar etc. They are going for taking ahar, in the mind there is desire for taking ahar also, but they do not beg for Ahar; by himself if someone gives then upon fulfilment of own constraints they take ahar. There the greed is weak  and there is no deceit or pride. The deceit and pride would be there when for enacting deceit and establishing greatness they adopt such  farce. But Munis do not have such objective ; hence they do not have deceit-pride.

If there is such kind of deceit-pride, then those who carry out pap with mind itself and not by means of speech-body, they all would be committing  deceit and those holder of higher state, do not adopt lower state, they all would have pride- such unacceptable would happen.

There you said- ‘What is great greed in begging ahar? ‘  Look! When strong Kashaya is there then in spite of adopting Lok-deplorable activities, he wishes to fulfil desire . Begging is deplorable in Lok , adopting that the desire for fulfilment of Ahar was carried out ; hence here great greed occurred.

And you asked- How Muni dharma got destroyed?

Then Look! In Muni dharma such strong Kashaya is not possible. And someone did not have desire to give Ahar and he went and begged at his house, there he was hesitant and by not giving he was fearful of criticism by Lok; hence he gave Ahar, but internally he was hurt and it resulted in cause for Himsa. If you had not gone to his home and  he himself  had desire to give then he would have been happy. But this is getting the work done forcibly.

And for own activity ‘ the begging form words’ are pap form; hence they are Untrue speech category. He did not have desire to give, he begged, then without desire with  hesitation he gave ; hence it amounts to AdattaGrahan also. And in the house the wife of householder was sitting informally and he came; hence the boundary of Bramhacharya was also broken. Further after bringing Ahar, he kept for sometime, for retaining Ahar he kept vessels, hence there was parigrah (possession).

Thus with destruction of five MahaVritas the Muni Dharma gets destroyed; hence the Muni should not take Ahar by begging.

Then he says- In the 22 Parishah ( hardships) of Muni ‘Yachana Parishah’ is told; hence without begging how can that parishah be withstood?

Its answer- The name of begging is not ‘Yachana Parishah’; not begging is called ‘Yachana Parishah’. Just as name of doing Arati is not ‘Arati Parishah’; not doing Arati is called ‘Arati Parishah’- know thus. If begging were ‘Parishah’ then poor people do lot of begging, they would have lot of dharma.

If you say- For reducing pride, it is called ‘Parishah’ ?

Then it is told- For act of some Kashaya, by renouncing some Kashaya, it results in pap only. For ex.- someone out of greed, does not count even own insult , then he has strong greed, with that disgrace also great Pap is accrued. If you do not have desire and someone himself insults then he is having great dharma. But here with begging  for food out of greed , got insulted; hence it is pap only and not dharma.

And for clothes etc. also he begs but those clothes etc. are not part of any dharma, are means for body pleasure; hence as described above they should be rejected.

Look! The  high state of own dharma, by begging, it is brought down and this makes the dharma lowered. Thus in several ways the begging is not feasible in Muni dharma but the doer of such deeds is called Sadhu or Guru.

-          In this way the form of Guru is described differently.

Continued…..