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…..