MokshaMargPrakashak …21

 

Promiscuity of NishchayaBhasi and its Negation

There is no consideration  that ‘ In Moksha Marga the shraddhan-gyan-acharan is done for elimination of ragas etc.’ ; by own  Shuddha experience, believing self to be Samyak Drishti , negates all other practices.

“Practicing Shastras’ is told as useless; ‘ contemplation of dravya etc. and gunasthana-margana-trilok etc. ‘ are called as Vikalpa ; ‘Doing Tapa is termed as unnecessary hardship’ ; ‘ practicing Vrita etc. are called as bondage’ ; ‘poojan etc. activities are despicable being Shubha asrava’; thus negating all practices, manifests in   Pramad form.

‘If shastra practices are useless’ then even the Munis also have two main activities- dhyan and studies. When the Upayoga is not engaged in Dhyan then it is directed towards Studies; elsewhere it is not suitable to engage Upayoga. By practice of Shastras with knowledge of Tattvas specifically, the Samyak Darshan-Gyan gets purified and there so long as Upayoga is engaged, till then Kashaya weakens and future Veetrag bhavas get enhanced- hence how can such activity be considered as useless?

There he says- Those shastras where there is  ‘preachment of Adhyatma’, they should be practiced ; with practice of other shastras there is no gain.

He is told- If you have the right Drishti then all Jain shastras are meaningful.  There, primarily in Adhyatma Shastras the description is that of soul nature; hence upon gaining Samyak darshan the decision of Soul nature has been made, now for purity of gyan and keeping Upayoga in weak Kashaya form, the practice of other shastras is primary. Further for keeping the decision of form of soul nature clear, the practice of other Adhyatma shastras should be done, but there should not be disinterest in other shastras; those who have disinterest in other shastras , they do not have real interest in Adhyatma.

For example- The one who is obsessed with sensory pleasures, he listens to the stories of the people obsessed with sensory pleasures with interest, learns the specifics of the sensory subjects and those means which are used for conduct of sensory pleasures, them also he accepts as beneficial and recognises the nature of sensory subjects also . In the same way the one who is interested in soul, he should know the Puranas of the Tirthankaras etc. who were interested in soul; for knowing soul further he should know the Gunasthana etc. also and for conduct of soul, the means of Vrita etc. also should be known as beneficial and thus he knows the nature of soul also ; thus all four Anuyogas are meaningful. 

And for knowing it clearly, the grammar-logic shastras also should be known; hence within own capability it is worthwhile to do little or more practice of all.

Then he says – In ‘ Padmanandi Pacchisi ‘ it is told that ‘ the Buddhi that wanders in the external shastras abandoning soul nature , that is adulterer.’

Its reply- This is also true . Since Buddhi belongs to soul and abandoning it, if it is engaged in other dravya form shastras, then it is called as adulterer only. Just as- the wife remains virtuous then it is right only and if abandoning good husband, if she enjoys with other person then she is extremely despicable. In the same way if the buddhi engages in soul nature then it is right only and if it cannot be continued then abandoning Shubha shastras etc. form other dravyas , engages in ashubha sensory pleasures etc. then it is highly deplorable. But buddhi of even the Munis also cannot remain within own nature for long then how can you engage it?

Hence engaging in Shstra practice is suitable.

There you call the consideration of Dravya etc. and Gunasthana etc. as Vikalpa , so surely they are vikalpa but if upayoga does not remain Nirvikalpa , and even these vikalpas are also abandoned then the other vikalpas  which occur are highly raga form. The Nirvikalpa state does not remain for ever since the upayoga of Chhadmastha remains in one form at the most for AntarMuhurta only.

If you say- I shall carry out contemplation of soul nature in different ways.

He is told- In Samanya contemplation there are not many types and if you engage in Vishesh ( specific) then it would lead to consideration of dravya-guna-paryaya, gunasthana-margana, shuddha-ashuddha states etc. only.

And Lisen! Only with soul knowledge Moksha Marga is not attained; with shraddhan-gyan  of seven tattvas and by eliminating ragas etc. ‘Moksha Marga’ is attained; hence for knowing the seven  tattvas specifically, specifics of Jiva-Ajiva, specifics of asrava-bandh etc. of karmas, they should be learnt by which Samyak darshan-Gyan is attained, and later ragas etc. should be eliminated. In this way by abandoning the causes of enhancement of ragas etc., the upayoga should be applied towards the  means for reduction of ragas etc.

The considerations of dravyas etc. and gunasthanas etc. are means for reducing ragas etc. , none of them are  nimitta for its enhancement; hence after attaining Samyak Darshan the upayoga should be engaged there only.

Then he says – those which are means for reducing ragas etc. , the Upayoga should be engaged there but how are considerations of gati etc. of jivas of Trilok, specifics of bandh-uday-satta of karmas and knowing shape-size etc. of Trilok meaningful?

Its reply- By their consideration also the ragas etc. do not increase since those subjects of knowledge are not desirable-undesirable form ; hence they are not cause for present ragas etc. By knowing them specifically the Tattva Gyan purifies ; hence it is means for reducing future ragas etc.; there it is meaningful.

Then he says- The heaven-hell etc. get known , there the raga-dwesha occurs?

Its answer- Gyani does not have such spirit; agyani does have thus; but by abandoning pap activities it is directed towards punya deeds; hence in some respect ragas are reduced only.

Then he says- It is the preachment of shastras that limited knowledge of  meaningful subjects is sufficient; hence why should we engage in vikalpa of knowing more?

Its reply- Those Jivas who know other things a lot while they do not know the meaningful at all, or those who do not have capability of knowing more, they have been preached thus. But those who have lot of capability of knowing more, they have  not been told that by knowing more you would be harmed. The more they know, the more meaningful it would be and it would become pure, since in shastra it has been told-

“ Compared to the samanya shastra, the specific is powerful; with specifics only the decision is taken properly ; hence knowing specifics is worthwhile.”

There he calls Tapa as unnecessary hardships but after being Moksha Margi the manifestation has to be opposite to that of worldly jivas. The worldly people have raga-dwesha with desired-undesired materials, he should not have raga-dwesha.

For giving up raga he renounces desired materials food etc. and for renouncing dwesha, he accepts undesired materials fasting etc. In independent form with such practice, in spite of attainment of desired-undesired materials dependent upon others, he should not have raga-dwesha but you have dwesha with fasting etc.; hence you called it hardship.

When such hardship was present,  then taking food automatically is sukh and there raga accrued, but such manifestations occurs to worldly people only, what did you do being Moksha Margi?

If you say- So many Samyak Drishtis also do not engage in tapa.

Its reply- For specific reason they cannot do Tapa, but in shraddhan know the tapa to be good and desire to practice it. You have shraddhan that doing tapa is hardship and you make no efforts towards it; hence how do you attain Samyak darshan?

Then he says- In shastra it is told that if you wish to do  hardship of tapa etc. then do it but there is no success without Gyan.

Its reply- Those Jivas who are contrary to TattvaGyan and  believe Moksha by tapa alone, they have been preached in this way that without Tattva gyan , with tapa alone Moksha Marga is not attained and upon gaining Tattva Gyan, for eliminating ragas etc. there is no prohibition of Tapa. If it were prohibited then why would ganadhara etc. do Tapa? Hence depending upon capability, doing Tapa is worthwhile.

There he considers the Vrita etc. to be bondage but the promiscuity was there in agyan state itself; upon attainment of Gyan , it  prevents  manifestation only ( pertaining to other dravya) . Hence for preventing that manifestation, he should surely be relinquisher of external Himsa etc form reasons.

Then he says – ‘ Our manifestations are shuddha; if external renunciation is not done, it does not matter.’

Its reply- If these Himsa etc. form deeds occur on their own without your manifestations , then we shall accept it , but if you act according to your manifestation, then how can we call your manifestations as Shuddha? How can the  activity of sensory enjoyments or Pramad form travel etc. activities occur without manifestations? Those activities you yourself carried out with efforts but the Himsa etc. which is entailed there, you do not count, and believe the manifestations to be Shuddha. But with such belief your manifestations shall remain ashuddha only.

Then he says- Prevent the manifestations, reduce the external Himsa etc. also, but in taking vow there is bondage ; hence do not accept vow form Vrita?

Its answer- The activity which  is possible to be carried out , for that vow is not taken  and with possibility being there, the raga also is there. On account of that raga bhava,  without doing the act on account of Avirati, karma bandh accrues, hence the vow should surely be taken. Without bondage of the rule pertaining to the deed, how can the manifestation be prevented? With necessity such form manifestations  would surely occur and without necessity also its possibility remains; hence taking vow is appropriate.

Then he says- If some unknown form of fruition may happen and later the vow may be broken then great pap would accrue ; hence in accordance with destiny what ever happens, let is happen; but vikalpa of vow should not be taken.

Its answer- At the time of taking vow, that which cannot be fulfilled , such vow should not be taken; but if at the time of taking vow itself this attitude is there that upon necessity I would abandon it , then what is the use of such vow? At the time of taking vow, the manifestation should be such that even at the cost of life I shall not give it up- taking such vow only is appropriate. Without taking vow the bandh  pertaining to avirati does not get eliminated.

There if due to fear of future fruition , the vow is not undertaken then upon consideration of possible fruition all activities gets destroyed. For ex- One should eat that much only which he could digest. If due to food someone gets indigestion then with that fear if he gives up food then death only would result. In the same way, the vow should be taken in accordance with what can be fulfilled. Per chance someone had been  corrupted from the vow and with such fear one does not take vow then it is Asanyam only. Hence whichever  way it is possible, it is appropriate to take vow.

There, if “ according to destiny the deeds are done”, then why do you make efforts for eating  food etc? If you make efforts there then ‘ efforts can be made for renunciation  also’. When your state is like that of an idol then we shall consider it as destiny and not your deed; hence why do you give arguments in favour of promiscuity ? Hence whichever way possible, taking vows, accepting vrita is appropriate only.

And knowing the poojan etc. activities are Shubha asrava, he believes them to be deplorable- so this true only, but by renouncing these activities if he adopts shuddhopayoga form then it is good, but if he manifests in sensory subjects-kashaya form- ashubha forms then it is bad only. With shubhopayoga swarga etc. are attained or with good intents or right nimitta, the duration-intensity of karma are reduced then Samyaktva etc. can also be attained; while with ashubhopayoga the Narak-Nigod are attained or with bad intents or bad nimittas the duration-intensity of karma are enhanced then Samyaktva etc. would become more difficult to attain.

With Shubhopayoga the Kashaya weakens and with Ashubhopayoga it becomes strong ; hence abandoning activities of weak kashaya , engaging in strong Kashaya is like not eating bitter food but eating poison, but this is ignorance only.

There he says again- In shastra Shubha-ashubha have been called as equal; hence it is not important for us to know their difference?

Its answer- The jivas who, believing shubhopayoga as cause for Moksha, believe it to be venerable and do not recognise shuddhopayoga , they have been told  that from aspects of the  ashuddha nature , both Shubha-ashubha and from aspects of being cause for bondage, both are equal.  

And if Shubha-ashubha are mututally compared then in Shubha bhavas the Kashaya is weak , hence the bondage is  mild; while in ashubha bhavas the Kashaya is intense ; hence bandh is strong.

Considering this way, in Siddhant compared to ashubha, Shubha is also called as better. Just as any disease either less or more is harmful only, but compared to bigger disease the lesser disease is called superior; hence if Shuddhopayoga is not there ,  till then abandoning ashubha , manifesting in Shubha is suitable, manifesting in  ashubha abandoning Shubha is not right.

Then he says- For eliminating hunger etc. or desires etc., the ashubha activities cannot be prevented and then Shubha activity have to be undertaken by desiring so; Gyani does not want to desire, hence efforts for Shubha should not be undertaken? 

Its answer- By engaging Upayoga in Shubha activity and with their nimitta, by enhancement of detachment, the desires etc. become weaker and hardship in hunger etc. are also less; hence Shubhopayoga should be practiced. In spite of efforts if the desires etc. and hunger etc. cause suffering then for them small pap as required can be done , but abandoning shubhopayoga engaging in pap form with freedom is not appropriate.

And you say- Gyani does not wish to  desire and shubhopayoga is attained by desiring then – Just as some person does not want to donate any amount at all , but where lot of money is being lost, there with own  desire makes arrangement for giving some money; same way Gyani does not wish to engage in Kashaya form at all , but where lot of Kashaya form ashubha activities are likely to happen, there by desiring, he makes efforts for Shubha activity with low Kashaya form.

-          With this it establishes that ‘ where shuddhopayoga is seen to be possible, there the Shubha activity is prohibited, but where ashubhopayoga is seen to happen, there with efforts for Shubha , it should be carried out.

In this way with upliftment of Vyavahara activities, those who support the promiscuity are negated.

Continued…..

MokshaMargPrakashak …20

 

Seventh Chapter

Deliberation of Jain Mithya Drishtis

Those jivas who are Jains, follow Jina-order  and still have Mithyatva, they are described here since even a part of this Mithyatva enemy is bad ; hence even an iota of Mithyatva should be renounced.

In Jinagam , the description is in Nishchaya-Vyavahara form ; in them the reality is called ‘Nishchaya’ and Upachar is called ‘Vyavahara’ but without knowing their true nature, people  manifest contrarily. That is narrated  here-

NishchayaBhasi Mithya Drishti

Several Jivas without knowing Nishchaya, being shraddhani of NishchayaBhas, believe themselves to be MokshaMargi, experience own soul to be like that of Siddha, but explicitly they are worldly and out of delusion, believe themselves to be Siddha; that only is Mithya Drishti ( Mithya Darshan).

In the shastras the soul has been told to be like that of Siddha , that is from aspect of Dravya Drishti; from aspect of Paryaya it is not same as that of Siddha. Just as – king and pauper, from aspect of Manushya are same but from aspect of being king and pauper they are not same; in the same way the Siddha and worldly, from aspect of being Jiva are same but from aspect of being Siddha and worldly they are not same. Even so,  the way the Siddhas are Shuddha, they believe themselves to be Shuddha , but that is Shuddha-ashuddha state in paryaya form - from aspect of this paryaya the equality was believed; that only is Mithya Drishti (Mithya darshan).

There presence of Keval Gyan etc. are believed within self but in reality self is having Kshayopasham form Mati-Shruta etc. Gyan; the Kshayik Gyan is attained with destruction of karmas and they are believing presence of Kshayik Bhava without destruction of Karma; hence this only is Mithya Drishti (Mithya Darshan).

In Shastras all jivas are told to have Keval Gyan nature, that is told from aspect of Shakti (capability) since all Jivas have capability of attaining Keval Gyan etc. form; the present revelation is told based upon what has been  revealed so far.

Someone believes- Keval Gyan is present in the Pradesh of soul, but due to obscuration it does not get revealed, but this is delusion. If Keval Gyan is there then in spite of obscuration of wall of  Vajra also it would know the things ; how can it then be prevented by the karmas? Hence with the Nimitta of Karma, the Keval Gyan  is absent only. If it were always present then it would have been called Paarinamik Bhava, but this is Kshayik Bhava. “ All divisions are implicit within which – such Chaitanya Bhava  is Paarinamik bhava .” Its different states are Mati Gyan form and Keval Gyan etc. form but this is not Paarinamik Bhava ; hence Keval Gyan should not be believed to be present always.

In the Shastras there is example given of sun , from that this only should be derived- just as due to presence of clouds the illumination of sun is not visible; in the same way with the fruition of karma , keval gyan is not present. And such meaning should not be implied- just as sun is illuminated; in the same way the keval gyan is present in the soul since the example does not hold good from all aspects.

Just as in pudgala the colour is a guna , which has green-yellow etc.  states, there in present state with presence of a certain state, other states are absent; in the same way the soul has Chaitanya guna, which has states of Mati Gyan etc. forms, there with presence of certain state in present, other states are absent only.

Here someone says- The term ‘Avarana’ is used to denote the obscuration  of the thing; when keval gyan is not present then why do you call it Keval Gyanavarana?

Its reply- Here shakti is present, it is not being revealed – from this aspect the term ‘Avaran’ is used. Just as with absence of Desha Charitra, from aspect of destroying the shakti, ApratyaKhyanavarana Kashaya is told to be present; in the same way know here.

Know this- The bhava in the thing which occurs with the nimitta of others, they are named Aupadhik Bhava  and those bhavas which occur without nimitta of others are called Swabhava bhava.

Just as – water with the nimitta of fire became hot, hence there is absence of coldness, but with elimination of nimitta of fire the coldness returns; hence always the swabhava of water is said to be cold only since such shakti is always present and with its revelation ‘the swabhava was revealed’ – thus it is said. In the same way the soul with the nimitta of karma became other form, there Keval Gyan is absent only  but with the elimination of nimitta of karma it becomes Keval Gyan for ever. Hence at all times the swabhava of soul is said to be Keval Gyan since its has such shakti that upon its revelation ‘the swabhava gets revealed’- it is said.

Just as with swabhava of coldness, believing hot water to be cold, if someone drinks it then he would burn only; in the same way with swabahava of Keval Gyan, if Ashuddha soul is considered to be Keval Gyani then it would result in sorrow only.

In this way,  those who experience the soul to be Keval Gyan etc. form , they are Mithya Drishti.

In spite of explicit ragas etc. bhavas being present, out of delusion they believe the soul to be free of ragas etc.

They are asked- these ragas etc. are seen visibly to happen, their presence is in which dravya? If they are present  in body or karma form pudgala then these bhavas should be Achetan or corporeal, but these ragas etc. are visibly seen to be with Chetana  and non corporeal; hence these bhavas belong to soul only.

The same is told in Samaysar Kalash-

“ This ragas etc.  form  Bhava karma has not been done by anyone – it is not so since it is an activity. And it is not deed of both Jiva and Karma Prakriti also since if it were so, then the Achetan Karma Prakriti also should suffer the result of bhava karma in form of sukh-dukh which is impossible. And it is not deed of karma Prakriti alone also since its Achetan-ness is explicit; hence the karta of ragas etc. is Jiva only and these ragas etc. are karma of Jiva only since bhava karma follows in accordance with Chetana; without Chetana it does not happen and Pudgala is not sentient.

In this way the ragas etc. bhavas are existent in the Jiva only.

Now, those who believe themselves to be Akarta of ragas etc., believing the karma only to be nimitta of ragas etc. bhavas , they are karta themselves but being inactive they wish to remain in Pramad form ; hence they blame karma only,  but sadly this is a delusion.

Same is told in Samaysar Kalash-

“ Those jivas who believe other dravya only to be nimitta for the generation of ragas etc. , those jivas devoid of Shuddha gyan are blind – being such they cannot cross the river of Moha.”

In the Sarva Vishuddha Adhikar of Samaysar it is told- “ Those who believe the soul to be Akarta and says that karmas only awaken- make sleep , due to karma of other’s destruction form Himsa occurs, with Veda Karma Abramh occurs; hence karma only is karta “ – Such Jaini has been called Samkhya follower. Just as Samkhya follower believing soul  to be Shuddha becomes promiscuous ; in the same way he has also manifested.

With such shraddhan the following fault occurred- when ragas etc. are not known to be own then  self is believed to be Akarta, then there is no fear of ragas  and there is no effort for elimination of ragas etc. ; being promiscuous, bonding with bad karmas he transmigrates in infinite world.

Here question is that Samaysar also it has been told-

“ The colour etc. and ragas etc. bhavas are different from this soul”

And there only the ragas etc. are called pudgala form and in other shastras also soul is called different from ragas etc. but how is it?

Its reply- The ragas etc. bhavas are Aupadhik Bhava occurring with the nimitta of other dravya  and Jiva believes them to be his nature; the ones he believes them as own nature, how can he call them as bad? And why would he make efforts for their destruction? Hence such shraddhan is contrary; for renouncing them, from aspect of nature, ragas etc. are called different and from aspect of nimitta they  are called Pudgala form.

Just as the doctor wishes to eliminate the disease. If he sees more of coolness then he prescribes hot medicine and if he sees more of heat then he prescribes cool medicine. In the same way Shri Guru wishes the ragas etc. to be renounced ; If he becomes inactive being promiscuous believing ragas etc. to be others, then with primacy of Upadan cause, the ragas belong to soul- such shraddhan is imposed. And if believing ragas etc. to be own nature, he does not make effort for their destruction then the ragas etc. are other bhava from primacy of Nimitta cause- such shraddhan is inculcated.

-          Being free from both contrary shraddhan , when the true shraddhan occurs then he believes that ‘ these ragas etc. bhavas are not of the  nature of soul ; with the nimitta of karma they manifest in vibhava paryaya form in the soul ; with elimination of the nimitta, their destruction can be achieved and only swabhava bhava remains; hence make effort for their destruction.’

Here question is asked- If these occur due to nimitta of karma then so long as fruition of karma is there, till then how can those vibhava be destroyed? Hence making efforts for that is useless?

Its reply- For one deed to happen, several reasons are required; out of them the means which can be accomplished by means of buddhi, those he should accomplish  and if those means which  are not dependent upon  buddhi get accomplished themselves, then the deed gets accomplished.

For example- For getting a son, the means with buddhi is getting married etc. and means not dependent upon buddhi is bhavitavya (destiny) ; there the one desirous of son, makes effort for marriage etc. and if bhavitavya is accomplished on its own, then the son is attained.

In the same way for elimination of vibhava, the means with buddhi  are contemplation of Tattva etc. and means not dependent upon buddhi are upasham etc. of Moha karma ; hence the one desirous should make efforts for contemplation of Tattvas while if upasham etc. of Moha karma occur on their own , then raga etc. get eliminated.

Here this is asked- Just as marriage etc. are dependent upon Bhavitavya; in the same way Tattva contemplation etc. are also dependent upon kshayopasham etc. of karmas; hence making efforts is useless?

Its reply- The kshayopasham of gyanavarana suitable for Tattva contemplation has occurred to you; hence Upayoga has to be directed towards them. The Asangyi jivas do not have kshayopasham  hence efforts are not made to preach them .

Then he says- If destiny is there then Upayoga would be applied there; without destiny how can Upayoga be directed?

Its reply- If such is the shraddhan then do not make efforts for any activity. You make efforts for eating-drinking etc. but here you are dependent upon destiny; it appears that you do not have interest in it; out of pride etc. such false arguments are put up.

Hence those who believe the soul to be free of raga etc. in spite of its existence , they should be known as Mithya Drishti.

They believe the soul to be bondage free in spite of having bondage with karma-nokarma.

Its bondage is directly seen; with gyanavarana the loss of gyan etc. is seen, in accordance with the body its states are seen to change; then how bondage is not there? If bondage is not there then why should Moksha Margi make efforts for its destruction ?

Here someone says- How is it that in shastras the soul has been described as different  from karma-nokarma , untouched-unbonded ?

Its reply- The relationships are  of different types-

From aspect of oneness  relationship , soul is said to be different from karma-nokarma since dravya does not give up its nature and become one with it  and from the same aspect it is called untouched-unbonded . While from aspect of Nimitta-naimittik relationship the bondage is there, with its nimitta the soul attains different states; hence believing self to be absolutely bondage free is Mithya Darshan.

If someone says-  We are not interested in vikalpa of bondage-salvation, since it is written in shastras –

“ The jiva who considers self to be bonded and then liberated, he definitely gets bonded.”

He is told- Those jivas who having only paryaya Drishti believe the states of bondage and freedom; who do not accept dravya nature, they have been preached in this manner that the jiva who without knowing Dravya nature , considers self to be bonded and freed , he gets surely bonded. If absolutely there is no bondage-freedom then why should it be said that ‘this jiva gets bonded’? And why does he make efforts for destruction of bondage and attaining salvation ? Why does he engage in experiencing soul? Hence ‘ from aspect of dravya Drishti there is one state while from aspect of paryaya Drishti there are several states’ – believing thus is right.

-          In this manner  with different ways applying  only intent of  Nishchaya Naya, he engages in contrary shraddhan etc.

In Jinavani from aspects of different nayas, the description has been made in different ways; but with his own objectives he accepts the statements from aspect of Nishchaya naya only and thus attains Mithya darshan .

In Jinavani the Moksha Marga has been told to be unity of Samyak Darshan-Gyan-Charitra ; hence in his ‘Samyak Darshan-Gyan the shraddhan and gyan of seven tattvas should be there ‘ , but that is not considered and in ‘Charitra the ragas etc. should be eliminated’ – its efforts are not there;  only ‘one Shuddha Atma should be experienced’ – knowing this only as Moksha Marga, he is satisfied.

For practicing that he contemplates thus internally – ‘ I am Shuddha like Siddha; having Keval Gyan etc.; free of dravya karma- Nokarma; supremely blissful; sorrows of birth-death do not belong to me’ , in such  several way he thinks.

Here it is asked- If this contemplation is from aspect of Dravya Drishti  then ‘ Dravya is Shuddha-ashuddha, conglomeration of all paryayas, why do you experience shudddha alone?’  and if done from aspect of Paryaya Drishti then ‘ your present is ashuddha paryaya only; how do you consider yourself to be Shuddha ?’

If you believe Shuddha from aspect of Shakti (capability)  then, ‘ I have such capability’ – believe thus ; ‘I am thus’ – why do you accept thus?  Hence contemplating self to be Shuddha form is delusion since ‘ you have believed self to be like Siddha , then to whom does  this worldly state belong? If you have Keval Gyan etc. then who has these Mati Gyan etc.?  If you are free of Dravya karma-Nokarma then why the Gyan etc.  are not revealed? If you are supremely blissful, then what remained to be done? And if sorrows of birth-death are not there then why are you unhappy? ‘ Hence in one state, believing another state is delusion only.

Here someone says- In shastras why preachment for Shuddha contemplation is given?

Its reply- One is ‘shuddha state from aspect of Dravya’ and one ‘ Shuddha state from aspect of paryaya ‘ is there. From aspect of dravya ‘ different from other dravya and indifferent from own bhavas ‘ that is termed as ‘Shuddha state’ and from aspect of paryaya ‘ the absence of Aupadhik  bhavas’ is termed as ‘Shuddha state’ ; there in  ‘Shuddha contemplation the Shuddha state is from aspect of dravya’ -that has been considered. The same is told in Samaysar –

“ The soul is not Pramatta-Apramatta ; hence it is experienced to be Shuddha free of bhavas of all other dravyas being different “ – this is told.

And at the same time it is told-

“ Beyond all the activities of mass of all the karta, karma etc. predicates – such pure experience i.e. indivisible himself is Shuddha “

-          Thus the meaning of ‘Shuddha’  should be known.

In the same way the meaning of ‘Keval’ word should be known – ‘ which is different from other bhava , only self ‘ – that is Keval. In the same manner other right meanings should be applied.

Believing self  to be ‘ Shuddha from aspect of paryaya’ and  believing self as ‘Kevali’ is highly erroneous; hence ‘ self should be seen as dravya-paryaya form’ i.e. “ from aspect of dravya , samanya nature should be observed’ and ‘ from aspect of paryaya the Vishesh nature should be observed’ .

-          With such contemplation Samyak Drishti is attained since without true observation, how can he be called as Samyak Drishti ?

Continued…..

MokshaMargPrakashak …19

 

Arguments supporting weak Conduct and their refutation

Now the establishment of KuGurus by means of improper arguments is refuted-

There he says- Without Guru one is Guruless and such Gurus are not seen at present, then they only should be accepted as Guru?

Its reply- GuruLess is one who does not accept Guru at all. If someone believes in Guru, but in this kshetra upon observing lack of characteristics of Guru, does not accept anyone as Guru, then with such shraddhan he does not become Guruless. Just as Nastik ( atheist) is one who does not believe in Parameshwara. There if someone believes in Parameshwara , but in this kshetra seeing absence of his characteristics, does not accept anyone to be Parameshwara, then he does not get counted as Nastik. In the same way it should be known here.

Then he says – In Jain shastras the absence of Kevali in present has been told but absence of Muni has not been told?

Its reply- But it has not been told that in these places the presence would be there. Presence  has been told in Bharat Kshetra but Bharat Kshetra is quite large , somewhere presence may be there hence absence cannot be said. Where you stay, in that kshetra itself if you believe his presence, then if you go somewhere where even such Gurus are not there, then whom would you accept as Guru? Just as in present the presence of swans has been told but if swans are not seen then other birds are not accepted as swans. In the same way the presence of Munis in present times has been told, but if Munis are not seen then others cannot be accepted as Munis.

Then he says – Donor of one letter is treated as Guru, then those who teach Shastra and preach, how can they not be accepted as Guru?

Its reply- Guru is name of elder, there depending upon the Mahant-ness which is applicable, in that way the Guru name is feasible. Just as- from aspect of Kula, the mother-father are Guru; in the same way the one educating has Guru name. Here the subject is that of dharma; hence the one who has Mahant-ness in dharma, he should be known as Guru.

Here Dharma is name of Charitra. Charitra only is dharma- this is told in shastra. Hence the one holder of Charitra only has name of Guru. And just as demon etc. are also called ‘Deva’  even then here in shraddhan of deva the Arahant deva is the subject. In the same way others are named Guru. Even so, here in the shraddhan of Guru the Nirgranth guru is the subject.

In Jain Dharma ‘Arahant Deva- Nirgranth Guru’ – these are famous words.

Here question – Why can others not be accepted as Guru other than Nirgranth?

Its reply- Other than Nirgranth, other jivas do not have Mahant-ness in every way. Just as greedy narrate shastra, there for the listener he was Mahant due to reciting of  shastra  and the listener became Mahant by offering him money, clothes etc. Although externally the one reciting shastra is Mahant, even so the one who is internally greedy, he believes the donor as higher and the donor believes the greedy as lower; hence he did not have Mahant-ness completely.

Here someone says- Nirgranth also take Ahar.

Its reply- Being greedy, by serving donor, with humility they do not accept Ahar, hence Mahant-ness does not apply. The one who is greedy, he only is lower. In the same way know about other jivas. Therefore Nirgranth only is adorned with Mahant-ness  in every way; other than Nirgranth other jivas are not having qualities in every way. Hence from aspect of qualities, from aspect of Mahant-ness and defects, lowliness is observed, there reverence cannot be offered without doubt.

Other than Nirgranth, the way other jivas practice dharma, in the same way and more than that, the practice of dharma can be done by house holders also; there who shall have the title of Guru? Hence the Nirgranth Muni  who is free of internal-external possessions, he only should be accepted as Guru.

Here someone may say – Such Guru are not  existent in present; hence the way the Arahant has been installed -  by idol; in the same way Guru can be installed – having same attire?

Its reply- Just as the installation of king is carried out by picture etc. then it  is not opponent of the king but when some ordinary person insists on being called as king then he is opponent of the king. In the same way if the installation of Arahant etc. is carried out in the stone etc. then it is not opponent of Him, but when an ordinary person insists on being called as Muni then he is opponent of the Munis.

If the installation can be done this way then one can call himself as Arahant also. And if it is their installation then externally they should be like him, but these are Nirgranth having lots of possessions- how can this be accepted?

Some one says- Now, shravak also are not the way they should be; hence like shravak – the same way Muni?

Its reply- Shravak term is applicable in shastra to all  house holders Jains. Shrenik also was Asanyami , he has been called supreme Shravak in Uttar Purana. In all twelve audiences  the presence of shravak has been stated, there all were not holders of Vritas. If all were holder of Vritas then the numbers of Asanyat Manushya would have been stated separately, but that has not been told; hence house holder Jaini attains ‘Shravak’ name while Muni name has not been told anywhere other than Nirgranths.

Here Shravak has been said to have eight prime  qualities; hence the consumption of liquor-meat-honey and five Udamber etc. fruits is not done by Shravaks; therefore in some way the shravak-ness is possible  but Munis have 28 prime qualities, which are not seen in those having attire; therefore they cannot have Muni-ness in any way. And in householder state JambuKumar etc. had indulged in lots of Himsa etc. – this is heard but after being Muni , none of them indulged in Himsa etc. acts , nor kept possessions; hence such logic is not applicable.

Look!  Along with Adinathji, four thousand kings after accepting ordination, got corrupted again, then Devas told them- ‘ Being JinaLingi if you manifest in contrary form then we shall punish you. After abandoning JinaLing , you can manifest in whichever way you desire.’

Hence calling themselves as  Jina Lingi , if  they manifest contrarily then they are punishable. How can they be venerable? What more can be told? Those adopting wrong attire in Jina faith indulge in great Pap ; those jivas who serve them also are Papis.

In PadmaPurana this story is there- Shreshthi dharmatma, believing the Charan Munis to be  corrupt out of  delusion, did not offer them Ahar;  then how can offering donation etc. is feasible to those who are visibly corrupt ?

Here someone says- Internally our Shraddhan is true but due to external shame etc. we follow formality; hence fruition would be due to internal manifestations?

Its reply- In ShatPahud the veneration has been negated on account of shame  etc., this was told earlier. Someone forces to bow the heads and fold hands, then it is possible that we did not have internal attitude; but if you  yourself with pride etc. indulge in Namaskar then  the internal attitude  is surely there?

Just as someone, internally knows meat as bad, but eats meat to attain the pleasure of king then how can he be accepted as Vrati? In the same way internally he knows the KuGuru service as bad , but serves them to get their pleasure, then how can he be called as Shraddhani? Since with external renunciation only internal renunciation is possible.

Hence those who are Shraddhani jivas, for them carrying out service of KuGurus in anyway is not advisable.

In this way the service of KuGuru was negated.

Here someone says- How did some Tattva Shraddhani accrue Mithyatva by service of KuGuru?

Its reply- Just as a woman with morality does not engage in enjoyments etc. activities with other people like those done with husband; in the same way the Tattva Shraddhani person does not engage at all in Namaskar etc. activities with KuGuru like those done with SuGuru since he is Shraddhani of Jivas etc. Tattvas hence he has belief in relinquishment of raga etc. and believes Veetraga bhava as supreme.

Hence knowing those Guru only as supreme who are having Veetragata ,  he offers Namaskar etc. and knowing those having ragas etc. as rejectable, he does not offer namaskar etc.

Someone says- Just as king etc. are offered Namaskar, the same way they are also offered?

Its reply- King etc. do not belong to dharma practice; the service of Guru is Dharma practice. The king etc. are served out of greed etc., there charitra moha only is under fruition.
Where in place of Guru, the KuGuru was served, there the cause for Tattva shraddhan was Guru, and this was contrary to him.

Hence due to shame etc. the one who has generated contrariness in cause, how can he have effective strong Tattva shraddhan? Hence there the fruition of Darshan Moha is definite.

In this way KuGurus were described. 

Description of KuDharma and prohibition of its Shraddhan etc.

Now KuDharma is narrated- 

Where Himsa etc. paps are generated and there is enhancement of sensory subjects and passions and still it is believed to be dharma then it should be known as KuDharma. There in activities of Yagna etc. great Himsa is generated and large jivas are killed and there the subjects of senses are nourished; towards those jivas, being devil hearted, being  Raudra dhyani, with strong greed harming others, some objective of own is desired to be attained- with such acts, believing dharma to be attained, that is KuDharma.

In the same way by engaging in bath etc. in Teertha and other places, there several jivas are harmed; the body is nourished; hence the sensory interests are served and desires etc. are enhanced; with intrigues etc. the Kashaya bhava is enhanced and it is believed to be dharma – this  is KuDharma.

There in Sankranti- eclipse- big disturbances etc. he offers donation and for bad planets etc. he gives donation; believing them to be worthy, he gives donation to greedy people; in giving donation he offers gold-elephant-horse-sesame etc. things but Sankranti etc. festivals are not dharma form; on account of movement of Jyotishi (planets) etc. the Sankranti etc. occur and offering for bad planets is on account of greatness of fear-greed etc.; hence offering donation does not constitute dharma. 

Greedy people are not worthy of being given alms since the greedy people, using several untrue arguments deceive and do not do good in the least. The benefit is when with the assistance of his donation, they practice dharma, but instead they manifest in pap form; then  how can the benefits to supporter of pap accrue?

In RayanSar shastra it is told-

“ Giving donation to  good people is like decoration of fruits of Kalpa tree- it is ornamental as well as pleasant while giving donation to greedy people is like the decoration of hearse of dead body; there the decoration is there but is quite painful to the swamy; hence it is not dharma in giving donation to greedy people.

There  such dravya should be offered that the dharma would propagate but by giving gold, elephant etc. the himsa is generated and pride-greed are enhanced; which causes great pap- how can there be punya by giving donation of such articles?

And the jivas obsessed with sensory pleasures call punya in donation of women etc. but where directly immorality etc. form of paps are there, how can punya accrue? For convincing they say that the woman attains happiness but such  woman attained happiness by enjoying sensual pleasures only then why sheel was preached? During enjoyments if her desires are not fulfilled  then she suffers; hence with such untrue arguments they preach for sensory enjoyments.

-          Thus giving donations other than that of compassion and to worthy person and believing accrual of dharma is completely kudharma.

There indulging in Vritas etc. they enhance the Himsa etc and sensory subjects but the Vritas were carried out for reducing them. Hence where the cereal etc. are renounced and roots are eaten, there Himsa is more only and specifically tastes etc. subjects were catered to.

And they do not eat in the day and eat at night; there directly compared to  food in the day the night food appears to have more Himsa, and Pramad (carelessness)  is more.

Engaging in Vritas etc. they make different adornments, engage in intrigues, gambling etc., different pap  activities are carried out while they wish the fruition of Vritas in the form of worldly desires to be fulfilled and destruction of undesired. There the intensity of Kashaya is more only.

-          Believing dharma by means of such Vritas is Kudharma.

There they enhance the Himsa etc. form Paps by means of activities of Bhakti etc. ; with dances, songs etc. desired food etc. and with other materials the sensory subjects are catered to; engage in intrigues- pramad etc. form activities, there lot of pap is generated and where there is no means of dharma, they believe dharma to be there; all that is Kudharma.

Several cause miseries to the body and there they generate Himsa etc, and engage in Kashaya etc. form activities. For ex. in Panchagni tapa several small-large jivas are burnt, himsa etc. is enhanced- what is the dharma there? And in inverted form they swing, keep arms upwards,  such different things are carried out; there misery only is attained- all these are not part of dharma.

And they hold their breath, with Neti, Dhoti etc. activities of water etc. Himsa is produced. If some miracle is generated then it enhances the pride etc. with it; there no dharma activity is there, several miseries are inflicted; but no efforts are made for reduction of sensory pleasures and Kashaya. Internally the intent is that of anger-pride-deceit-greed but with unnecessary misery they believe dharma is carried out, which is Kudharma.

Several people who cannot tolerate the miseries of this Lok or, they desire favourable to happen in ParLok, or for being offered Pooja or due to anger etc. they commit suicide. For ex. Upon death of husband the wife by burning in fire is called Sati, or they melt in Himalayas or they take Karont in Kashi, or enter the earth live itself; by all such acts they believe dharma to be performed but suicide is a great pap. If the attachment towards body had reduced then they should have engaged in Tapa etc. ,  what is the dharma in dying ? Hence committing suicide is Kudharma.

-          Several such varieties of Kudharma are there . How far they can be told- where sensory pleasures -kashaya are increased and are treated as dharma , all that should be known as Kudharma.

Look at the fault of kaal ! In jain Dharma also the practices of Kudharma have come.

In Jain faith the dharma festivals are described, there the objective is to abandon sensory pleasures-kashaya and manifest in Sanyam form; but that is not considered and under the guise of Vrita name different adornments are carried out and desired food is partaken or intrigues are enacted or activities of enhancement of Kashaya are undertaken, gambling etc. great pap forms are carried out.

There the objective of Poojan etc. activities was as follows- “In large mass of punya , a small part of pap cannot cause harm.” Using this deception, in activities of Pooja-Prabhavana etc. with lamp etc. in night or by collection of flowers etc. of the form of  infinite jivas, or with careless activities lot of pap is generated while chanting -bhakti activities are  negligently carried out . There the loss is huge while benefit is little – with such acts only harm is carried out.

Oh! Jina Temple is abode of dharma. There narrating various KuStories, sleeping and Pramad form activities are done and by gardening etc. they serve the sensory pleasures and Kashaya.

Believing greedy person as Guru, donations are offered and with their untrue glorification  they believe themselves to be Mahant. Thus in several ways the sensory pleasures-kashaya are enhanced and treated as Dharma but Jina dharma is Veetrag bhava form , in that such contrary tendencies are seen due to defects of times only.

Thus the service of Kudharma was negated.

Now, how does it constitute Mithyatva bhava? That is told-

In Tattva Shraddhan the objective is to renounce ragas etc.; this bhava only is called dharma. If by enhancing raga etc. bhavas, it is believed to be dharma then where is the Tattva Shraddhan there? This is contrary to Jina  order. And raga etc. bhavas are pap, they are treated as dharma which implies false shraddhan; therefore service of Kudharma constitutes Mithyatva bhava.

-          Thus with service of KuDeva-KuGuru-KuShastra the Mithyatva Bhava is strengthened- this is described.

There in ShatPahud it is told-

“ The one who offers veneration to despicable Deva or dharma out of shame, fear or pride , he is Mithya Drishti.”

Therefore the one who wishes to renounce Mithyatva, he should firstly renounce KuDeva-KuGuru-KuDharma. In the renunciation of 25 impurities of Samyaktva  - In AmoodhaDrishti  (ang) and in six Ayatan, these only  have been renounced; hence they should be renounced for sure.

There with service of KuDeva etc. the Mithyatva bhava which is generated, that is the bigger pap than Himsa etc. With its fruition one attains paryayas of Nigod-Narak etc. There they suffer for infinite kaal and the attainment of SamyakGyan becomes very rare.

There in ShatPahud it is told-

“ Those who are engaged in despicable dharma, carry out bhakti of despicable hypocrites, engage in despicable Tapa – those jivas have to suffer despicable Gati .”

Therefore O Bhavyas! With small amount of greed or fear, with service of Kudeva etc., great dukh has to be suffered for infinite period – engaging in such Mithyatva Bhava is not proper.

In Jina Dharma this is the practice- firstly the greater Pap has been made to be relinquished then smaller paps have been given up; therefore knowing this Mithyatva to be greater pap then seven vices , it is made to be relinquished first.

Therefore those who are afraid of result of Pap, who do not wish to sink their soul in the ocean of sorrow, those Jivas should relinquish this Mithyatva for sure; out of consideration of criticism-praise it is not proper to be weak since it is told in Neeti (value system)  also-

“ If someone criticizes then let him, if they pray then let them pray, whether Lakshmi comes or goes  and whether death occurs now or after time of Yuga, but the people conversant with Neeti do not deviate even one step from the path of justice. “

-          Considering this logic, out of fear-greed etc. of deploration- praise etc. it is not  right to engage in injustice form Mithyatva.

Oh! The Deva-Guru-Dharma are supreme substances. The dharma is supported by them. By having weakness in them, how can other dharma be carried out? Hence what is the use of telling more? In all possible ways it is right to renounce KuDeva-KuGuru-KuDharma.

By not renouncing KuDeva etc., the Mithyatva bhava is highly strengthened and in present times  the tendency towards these is specially more ; hence they have been described in negation form. Knowing them, abandoning Mithyatva bhava attain benediction for self.

This completes Chapter 6 of Negation of KuDeva-KuGuru-KuDharma.

Continued…..