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….