MokshaMargPrakashak …18

 

Description of KuGuru and negation of their shraddhan etc.

Now the shraddhan etc. of KuGuru is negated-

Those Jivas who manifest in the form of sensory subjects-Kashaya etc. adharmas and make others accept them as Dharmatma with pride etc., make others offer veneration suitable for dharmatma or by adopting some part of dharma , they are called Dharmatma , they make others perform activities suitable for big dharmatma – make themselves be treated as great by adopting such dharma, all those should be known as KuGuru since in dharma tradition with renunciation of sensory subjects-kashaya etc., the way dharma is practiced, that way only identifying own state is appropriate.

Negation of Guru-ness from aspect of Kula etc.

There several believe themselves to be Guru on account of Kula, some Brahmans etc. say- our kula is supreme; hence we are guru of all but the supremacy of kula is based upon the practice of dharma. If taking birth in Uccha Kula , someone conducts lowly, then how can he be accepted as Uccha.

If by taking birth in Kula only, the Uccha-ness remains then with consumption of meat etc. also , accept him as Uccha, but that is not acceptable.

In Bharat ( MahaBharat) Granth also several types of Brahmans have been stated- there in spite of being Brahman the one who acts like Chandal then he is called as ‘Chandal Brahman ‘. If from Kula only the Uccha position be there then why is he called by such a degrading name?

In Vaishnava shastras also it is told- VedaVyas etc. were born from fish. There how did the progeny of Kula continue? And prime birth is said to be from Bramha ; hence they have the same Kula for all; how different kulas are there? And the conjunction of woman of Uccha kula with man of neech kula  and woman of neech kula with man  of uccha kula has been seen to result in progeny; there how did the maintenance of kula remain?

If perhaps you tell- If it is so then why do you believe in the divisions of Uccha-Neech kula?

Its reply- In worldly affairs the untrue practices are also possible but in dharma activities the untruth is not possible; hence in dharma practices the Mahant-ness is not possible from aspect of Kula. With dharma practice only Mahant-ness is attained. In Brahman etc. Kulas the Mahant-ness is due to dharma practices; by engaging in himsa etc. pap activities, relinquishing the dharma practices, how would mahant-ness continue?

Someone says- Our past forefathers have been bhakta, siddha, dharmatma ; we belong to same progeny; hence we are guru.

They are told- The elders of those elders were not so great. Now in their progeny, with great activity you believe them to be great then in the progeny of great people, why do you accept  great to be the ones who does not do great deeds?

In shastras and in Lok this is famous- The father with Shubha deeds attains Uccha status; the son with ashubha deeds attains Neech status or the father with ashubha acts attains Neech status ; son with Shubha deeds attains Uccha status. Hence from aspect of elders the Mahant-ness should not be accepted.

In this way believing Guru-ness by Kula should be known  to be Mithya Bhava.

There several believe the Guru-ness on account of Patta – In the past some Mahant person had been there and on his Patta the disciple- disciples of disciples have continued; in them even without having qualities of Mahant person,  the Guru-ness is believed. If it is so, then in that Patta, someone even after engaging in great pap of enjoying other’s wife would be still a dharmatma and attain good Gati, but this is not possible and if he is Papi then does he have right over the Patta? The one who acts suitably for Guru Status , he only is Guru.

There earlier several were relinquishers of women etc., later after being corrupt they became house holder after marriage, their progeny believes themselves to be Guru, but after corruption how can Guru-ness continue? These too are similar to other house holders.

This is additional - Being corrupt they became house holders; how can the prime house holders accept them as Guru? 

And several engage in all pap activities; just they do not marry and with this part they believe own Guru-ness but only one non-Bramh is not the only pap ; Himsa- possessions etc. are also pap, engaging in them how can they be accepted as Dharmatma-Guru? And with Dharma buddhi they have not renounced marriage etc. but with objectives of livelihood and shame etc. they did not marry ; if they had dharma buddhi then why would they have engaged in Himsa etc.? And those who do not have dharma buddhi, they do not have strength of sheel also and when they do not marry then enjoyments with other’s wife etc. great pap are generated – with such activities, accepting Guru-ness is buddhi with great delusion.

There several people – believe Guru-ness with some form of attire but by adopting such attire, which dharma has been attained that they can be accepted as Dharmatma-Guru? There some one wears cap, some keep worn clothes, some one wears gown, some wear sheet, some keep red clothes, some keeps white clothes, someone keeps saffron clothes, some  wears jute, someone keeps deer skin, some wear ashes, etc. different disguises are made  but if heat-cold etc. cannot be tolerated , the shame was not renounced then why clothes of the form of cap-pajama etc. were abandoned? Abandoning them , with such disguises which part of dharma was realised?

Know that these attires are means for deceiving the householders- If self  keeps the attire same as that of householders then how can they be cheated? Whereas by these means their objective is attainment of  livelihood or money etc. or fame  etc. ; hence such disguises are adopted. The innocent world, upon observing that guise gets cheated or believes that he has attained dharma, but all that is delusion. It is said –

“ Just as a person interested in prostitute, celebrates even after getting  cheated of money; in the same way the jivas cheated by the Mithya attires do not know the wealth of dharma which is destroyed. “

Bhavartha- By serving those Mithya attire holders, own dharma wealth is lost, they do not feel sorrow for it and they  celebrate with Mithya Buddhi.

Some adopt the attires prescribed in Mithya Shastras but the Papis who are  authors of those Shastras, have given Mithya preachment  with the intent of getting own fame since  by following   simple activity high state can be attained and therefore lot of jivas would follow this path. The jivas without rationality towards that tradition do not consider that  with simple activity high state is attainable has been told , hence there must be  some deceit, but with delusion they tread the path declared by those authors.

There in some shastras difficult path has been narrated, which cannot be practiced, but people would not follow me without attaching  some importance to my name – with  this intent they adopt high names of the form of Yati, Muni, Acharya, Upadhyaya, Sadhu, Bhattarak, Sanyasi, Yogi, Tapasvi, Nagna etc.  but they cannot practice their conducts ; hence adopting different attires as desired, several adopt new names as per own desire.

-          By adopting such different attires they believe themselves to be Guru which is Mithya.

Here someone asks- The guises are seen to be of several kinds, how does one identify the true -false?

Its reply- The attires in which there is no objective of sensory subjects and Kashaya etc. , those attires are true – such true attires are of three types; all  others are Mithya.

In Shat Pahud shri Kundakundacharya has told-

“ One is Jina form – Ling of Nirgranth Digamber Muni; second , form of supreme shravak- Ling of 10^th- 11^th Pratima holder shravak ; the third is that of Aryika , the Ling of women- these three Lings are with Shraddhan and there is no other fourth Ling of the form of Samyak darshan.”

Bhavartha – Other than these three Lings, the one who accepts another Ling, he is without shraddhan,  Mithya Drishti. And in these disguise holders, several of them for justifying their attires, follow some parts of dharma also. Just as the one dealing with counterfeit coin, mixes some part of silver also in it for giving authenticity; in the same way with demonstration of some part of dharma, they flaunt their own high status.

Here someone says- The Dharma practice that is carried out, that would be beneficial at least?

Its answer- Just as with by giving name of fasting, even if one grain is eaten then he is Papi, whereas by giving name of Ekashan if less food is eaten then he is Dharmatma. In the same way, by giving higher status name, if little less is practiced then he is Maha Papi whereas with giving name of lower status, somewhat less dharma is practiced then he is Dharmatma. Hence dharma practice should be carried out in accordance with capability, there is no harm. But if by giving high Dharmatma name, lowly activities are carried out then great Pap ensues.

In the same ShatPahud Kundakundacharya has told-

“ The Muni state is like new born state; just as was there at the time of birth, it is naked; hence that Muni does not accept even the skin of sesame seed equivalent in wealth-clothes etc. things; if perchance he accepts less or more things then he traverses to Nigod. “

Hence look there! In house holder state with lots of possessions, if he limits it then he is eligible for Swarga-Moksha while in Muni state by accepting even least possession, he traverses to Nigod. Hence by adopting high name , practicing lowly is not appropriate.

Look! In Hundavasarpini kaal this fifth kaal is going on.

In Jina Faith the form of Muni is such – where there is no attachment towards external-internal possessions; just experiencing own soul by self, they remain aloof towards Shubha-ashubha bhavas.

But now with the fault of Kaal, the Jivas obsessed with sensory subjects – kashaya  adopt Muni state; there renouncing all Himsa they accept Five MahaVrita but accept white-red clothes etc., they are greedy towards food etc., make efforts for enhancing their tradition, several keep money also, engage in Himsa etc., and engage in different violent activities. But when the result of accepting small possession has been told to be Nigod, then the result of such Paps would be infinite world anyway.

Look at the ignorance of people! If someone breaks a small promise then he is called Papi and in spite of breaking big vow he is accepted as Guru, he is honoured like Muni but in the shastra the result of doing-getting done- endorsing deed is said to be equal; hence they also would get similar results.

The sequence of adopting Muni state is as follows- Firstly Tattva Gyan is attained, later manifestations of detached form occur, capability to withstand hardships is attained, then when he wishes to become Muni by himself,  then shri guru make him accept Muni Dharma.

How is this converse-ness – Distributing Muni state to the Jivas without having Tattva Gyan who are obsessed with sensory subjects and Kashaya with deceit or greed and later behaving conversely- this is great injustice.

In this way such KuGurus and their service was negated.

Now for endorsing this statement, the quotations of shastras are provided-

In Updesha Siddhant Ratnamala it is said-

“ Due to defect of Kaal, the Gurus have become bards and like bards singing praises of the donors, accept donation etc.  Therefore in this inferior kaal, both donor and acceptor drown in the world.” Further it is told-

“ Upon seeing the snake if someone runs then people do not say anything to him, but sadly! Look! Those who renounce the KuGuru form snake, the foolish people call him defaulter, speak ill of him.” Further-

“ Oh! Due to snake one dies for once only and KuGuru causes infinite deaths and infinite times birth-death are caused ; hence O brother! The acceptance of snake is alright but service of KuGuru is not good. “

-          For strengthening this shraddhan several gathas have been told there, they can be known from Upadesh Siddhant Ratna Mala.

And in ‘Sangh Patt’ it is said- “Look! The child of some poor, weak with hunger, undergoing ordination in some Chaityalaya etc., without being free of pap, due to some fortune attained Acharya State; he stays in Chaityalaya like his home, treats own group like family, considers himself to be great like Indra, believes Gyanis to be Agyanis like children, all house holders he believes to be poor- this is great wonder.”

In the same way there is a verse- “ the ones from whom, birth has not occurred, have not been nursed, there is no debt, there is no relation of any type and  they drive householders like bulls, forcibly donation etc. is collected; Oh!! Sadly! This world is devoid of King; no one to give justice. “

More verses of similar meaning are there, which can be seen from that Granth.

Here someone says-  This is preachment authored by Shwetambers ; why their quotation was offered?

Its answer- Just as- when inferior people themself reject it then superior people automatically reject it; in the same way those who call clothes etc. as their tools, they also prohibit it, then in Digamber dharma such converse-ness would be automatically prohibited. 

Digamber granths also are supporting the same shraddhan. In Shat Pahud authored by Shri KundaKundacharya it is told- 

“ The dharma preached by Jinavar has roots of the form of Samyak Darshan; listening to that , O people having ears! Accept that Jiva without Samyaktva is not venerable.”

Those who themselves are KuGuru,  how can they be Samyaktavi devoid of shraddhan of KuGuru. Without Samyaktva , any dharma can not be attained and without dharma how can they be venerable?

“ Those who are corrupt in Darshan, they are corrupted in Gyan,  corrupted in conduct; those jivas are more corrupt than corrupted ones and the jiva who follows their preachment, they destroy that jiva, harming him.

“ Those who are corrupted from Samyaktva and they wish the Samyaktva holders to touch their feet, they become lame-dumb; it implies that they take birth as Sthavar and attainment of realisation for them is extremely difficult. “

“ In spite of knowing, those who touch their feet out of shame, pride and fear, they too do not have realisation i.e. Samyaktva. How are those jivas? – They endorse Pap; in honouring  the Papis, they are afflicted with fruits of endorsement of Pap. “

“ The Ling in which there is acceptance of little or more possessions, that is deplorable in Jina Vachan; Only without possessions  can be Anagar (Sadhu). “

“ The one who is inactive in dharma, house of defects, fruitless like flower of sugar cane, devoid of conduct of qualities; he is actor-shraman in naked form, adopting the attire like a comedian. Here being naked the example of Comedian is possible; upon keeping possessions even that example is not applicable. “

“ Those whose intellect has been perverted with Pap – such Jivas, adopting the Ling of Jinvaras indulge in Pap, those idols of Pap should be known to be corrupted in Moksha Marg. There this too is told- “

“ Those who are obsessed with five types of clothes, accept possessions, practice begging, engaged in defects of Adhah-karma etc., they should be known as corrupted in Moksha Marg.”

Several more Gatha Sutras have been narrated for strengthening the same shraddhan, they can be known from there. In the same way there is LingPahud authored by shri KundaKundacharya , in that those who adopting the MuniLing , engage in Himsa  of the form of needless activity- yantra-mantra etc. , they have been highly negated.

In Atmanushasan authored by shri Gunabhadracharya, he  has told-

“ In this Kali Kaal the Tapasvis , fearful like deer from everywhere, stay near the city abandoning forest – this is highly disgraceful. Here staying near the city itself has been negated then staying within the city is prohibited automatically. “

“ Compared to the Tapa which is going  to result in infinite births in future, it is better to be householder. How is that Tapa? In the morning itself whose wealth of detachment has been looted by the looters of the form of  insinuating eyes of women. – It is such. “

In the same way in Paramatma Prakash authored by Yogindra Deva it is told-

“ With male-female disciples and books, the fool gets satisfied, but free of delusion Gyani,  knowing them to be cause for Bandh gets ashamed with them. “

“ That Jiva deceived his own soul, how ? – The Jiva who adopted Ling of JinaVara and after removing hair with ashes, he did not relinquish all the possessions. “

“ O Jiva! The Munis who after accepting JinaLing accept desired possessions , they eat the vomit after vomiting; it is implied that they are deplorable , etc. it is told. ”

In this way in Shastras the KuGuru and his conduct and his service has been negated , know it from there. In them  the Munis are described to have defects of 46 kinds of the form of being  Messenger etc., in food etc.; there pleasing the children of householders, informing the news, doing mantra-medicine-jyotish etc. activities, doing-getting done-endorsing food , etc. activities have been negated . But now with the defects of Kaal, in spite of  presence of such flaws, the food etc. is accepted. 

And Parshwastha , Kusheel etc. corrupted Munis have been negated ( in shastras), those characteristics only are adopted. The difference is that those are naked from aspect of dravya but these keep different possessions.

There the procedure for accepting Ahar as Bhramari etc. has been described but these being obsessed making the life of donor miserable , accept Ahar etc. And those unjust- deplorable Pap form deeds which are not even proper in householder dharma, they are visibly seen being engaged in.

Jina image, Shastra etc. which are supremely venerable, are disrespected and themselves being greater Mahant than them adopt practice of sitting higher than them etc. Thus several converse activities are directly seen and they believe themselves to be Muni , holder of Mool Gunas etc. In this way they make themselves to be revered. The house holders are innocent , being cheated by the praise by those KuGurus, they do not consider the dharma and are engaged in their Bhakti . But accepting greater pap as greater dharma – the result of such Mithyatva , would result in infinite world.

In shastra by believing one Jina Vachan to be otherwise has been described as great Pap; here there is no consideration of Jina vachan at all, then what is greater pap than these?

Continued…..

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….