MokshaMargPrakashak …14

 

Charvaak Faith

Now the form of Charvaak faith is described-

‘There no omniscient,  dharma-adhrama moksha, there are no fruits of punya-pap, there is no Parlok – what all is visible to senses, the Lok is that much’- thus tells the Charvaak.

There we ask them- The omniscient is not there in this kaal and kshetra or always-everywhere? In this kaal-kshetra, we too do not accept but he does not exist in all kaal-kshetra- how this knowledge was attained without being omniscient? ‘The one who knows all kaal-kshetra, he only is omniscient’ and if you do not know then how do you oppose it?

There, Dharma-Adharma are famous in the Lok- if they are imaginary then how are they so  famous in all the people? And the manifestations in dharma-adharma form are seen, with that only they are seen to be sukhi-dukhi in present; how do we reject it? The attainment of Moksha is inferred- Anger etc. flaws are less in someone and more in someone else; hence it can be known that someone would have absence of these also. And gyan etc, gunas are seen to be less or more for someone; hence it can be  known that for someone it would be complete.

-          Thus for whom all the flaws are eliminated and the gunas are attained, that only is Moksha state.

There the result of punya-pap is also seen- Someone with efforts also remains poor, someone has wealth by itself. Someone  remains ill in spite of efforts of body,  someone without efforts remains healthy. These are directly seen,  there should be some reason for it? Hence the reason only is punya-pap. And the Parlok  is also felt by Pratyaksha-Anumaan – Vyantar etc. are seen to be saying that ‘ I was so, now I am  Deva’

Then you shall say- ‘ this is wind only’.

There we call as Atma in which ‘ I am’ etc. form Chetana form bhavas are seen to exist; you call that as ‘wind’ ; but wind is blocked by wall etc. ; soul is not seen to be blocked upon death also ; how can we call it wind?

You call the Lok to be whatever is visible by senses but you cannot see with senses   the distant places of few Yojans and slightest past-future kaal –  kshetra related substances , where as traditionally we hear of distant countries and things pertaining to different kaals , hence their knowledge, you do not have ; then how do you say that Lok is this much only?

In Charvaak Faith they tell- With conjunction of earth, fire, water, wind, sky the Chetana is produced, whereas upon death the earth etc. remain here; the conscious substance has gone and become  Vyantar etc.- these are seen directly different. And in one body the earth etc. also appear to be different ; where as the Chetana appears to be same. If the Chetana is upon basis of earth etc. then in flesh, blood, breath etc. different Chetana should be there. With cutting of  hand etc. just as the varna etc. remain with it ; the same way Chetana also stays. And ego,  buddhi are present in Chetana but earth etc. form body remained here only, then in vyantar etc. paryaya the oneness with previous paryaya is seen , how is that possible? And the secret information of previous paryaya are revealed; hence that knowledge was shared with whom? The one who had the knowledge ,  that only is ‘Atma’.

In Charvaak faith – eating, drinking, enjoyments, etc. preachment of promiscuity are given but the world itself manifests in such form. There by creating shastras etc. what preachment of being good is given? You will say – For renouncing Tapa,  sheel, Sanyam etc. preachment was given , but in  these Tapa etc. activities with reduction of Kashaya the restlessness reduces; hence he becomes happy here itself and fame etc. is attained, but by renouncing these what benefits you cause?

By telling tales favourable to jivas obsessed with lust you are not afraid to harm yourself and others; for sensory enjoyments with promiscuity you give such false logic.

In this the Charvaak faith was refuted.

Other faiths rebuttal : Conclusion

In the same way there are several other faiths, which by creating false logic, have been revealed by papi jivas obsessed with sensory enjoyments, with their shraddhan the jivas get harmed.

And one Jina faith is there which  propagates truth , it has been sermonized by omniscient Veetrag Deva; with his shraddha etc. only the Jivas get benefited- in such Jina faith the Jivas etc. tattvas have been narrated; Pratyaksh-Paroksh two Pramans have been told; omniscient -Veetrag Arahant Deva is there; without internal-external possessions the Nirgranth Guru is there.

-          Their description would be written further in this Granth , know from there.

Here someone says- You have raga-dwesha ; hence by negating the other faiths , you try to establish your own faith.

To him it is told- In description of true thing there is no raga-dwesha. If with some objective , the narration is otherwise, then it gets to be called raga-dwesha.

Then he says – If raga-dwesha are not there then why do you tell other faiths as bad and Jain faith as good? With equanimity know all of them as equal ; why do you take sides?

To him we say- We call bad as bad, good as good; what is raga-dwesha there? And knowing good-bad as equal is agyan bhava; not equanimity.

Then he says- The objective of all faiths is same only; hence all should be known as equal.

To him we say- If objective is same then why should there be different faiths? In one faith with  one objective, the addressal is in different ways, who calls it different faith? But there the objectives also are different, that is demonstrated-

Comparison of other faiths with Jain faith

In Jain faith the objective is to nourish the Veetrag bhava; hence in stories, description of Lok etc., conduct and in Tattvas , everywhere the detachment only has been supported.

Whereas in other faiths the bhava with raga have only been supported since the imaginary creations are carried out by passionate jivas only and with different types of arguments they support the kashaya bhavas only.

For ex. – Adwait Bramhvadi , accepting all as Bramh; Samkhya followers, believing all deeds to be that of Prakriti and believing self to be Shuddha non-karta; Shiva followers believing the siddhi from knowledge of tattva only; Mimamsak believing Kashaya tainted conduct as dharma; bauddha believing all to be momentary; charvaak without accepting ParLok etc.; support promiscuity of sensory enjoyments form Kashaya activities only.

Although in some places they also talk of reducing Kashaya but with that deceit they support some other Kashaya. For ex.- leaving house activities, the bhajan of Parameshwara was carried out, but the form of Parameshwara is established as Saragi and with that support they nourish their own sensory subjects and Kashaya.

Whereas in Jain Dharma ‘ The form of Deva-Guru-Dharma etc.’ is declared as Veetrag only and only Veetragata is nurtured- this is obvious.

What can we say? The follower of other faith Bhartrihari has told thus in ‘detachment scenario’-

Amongst Ragi people one Mahadeva is glorious, who is holding his favourite Parvati in half the body and amongst Veetragis Jina Deva is glorious , compared to him no one is better in renouncing the company of women. The remaining people have been made unconscious by the snakes venom  form arrows of Kamdeva, who cannot properly enjoy the subjects due to irony of lust , nor can they give it up.

In this verse the MahaDeva has been called as prime amongst the Saragis and amongst Veetragis JinaDeva is called as prime. When Sarag bhava and Veetrag bhava have mutual opposition ; hence both cannot be  good and only one of them is beneficial.

Hence Veetrag bhava only is beneficial ; with whose presence the restlessness is immediately eliminated, he becomes venerable; which leads to ‘future benefit’ and with Sarag bhava immediate restlessness is experienced, it is deplorable; which causes ‘future harm’. Hence the one which has veetrag bhava only as objective-such Jain faith only is desirable. And where Sarag bhava only are the objective- such other faiths are harmful; how can they be treated as equal?

Then he says- This is true but with criticism of other faith, the followers of that faith become unhappy, opposition is generated; hence why should we criticise?

It is told- If we criticise with Kashaya and cause misery to others then we are Papi only but with the shraddhan of other faith etc.  the wrong shraddhan of jivas get strengthened, which results in jiva being unhappy in the world; hence with compassionate bhava the reality has been narrated. Some one without reason becomes unhappy, and objects then what can we do?

For example by criticising liquor the wine maker becomes unhappy, with criticism of kusheel prostitutes become unhappy and with the test of pure and mixed the cheats become  unhappy so what can we do?

In this way out of fear of Papis, if the dharma preachment is not given then how jivas would be benefited? There is no such preachment by which all can get comforted.

And it generates opposition, the opposition happens   by mutual arguments. If we do not fight then they would be automatically subsided. We shall be getting the results of own manifestations only. 

There someone says – With wrong shraddhan of meaningful Jivas etc. tattvas, Mithya darshan etc. are attained; with shraddhan of other faiths how will it result in Mithya darshan etc. ?

Its answer- In other faiths with converse arguments, the form of Jivas etc. tattvas do  not appear to be  real – such means are resorted to, why so ?

If the form of Jivas etc. Tattvas appear to be real then being Veetrag bhava only the Mahant nature would be seen, but the Jiva who is not Veetragi and desires to be Mahant, in spite of  having Sarag bhava have narrated it with imaginary arguments for establishing their own Mahant-ness.

Narrating the Adwait Bramha etc., they establish the non real shraddhan of Jiva-Ajiva; with support of promiscuity they establish non real shraddhan of Asrava-Samvar etc.; and with Moksha having form with Kashaya and non conscious , they establish non real shraddhan of Moksha. There the false nature of other faiths has been revealed. If their falsehood is felt then interest in Tattva shraddhan would arise and with its logic the delusion would not be generated.

In this way the other faiths were narrated.

With quotations of scriptures of other faiths , establishing the antiquity of Jain dharma  and its expediency

Now by means of proofs of the scriptures of other faiths itself the antiquity of Jain faith and its expediency is demonstrated-

‘Large Yog Vashishth’ is 36000 shlokas size granth, in its first “Vairagya treatise” in the chapter of “ Ahankara Nishedh” , in the dialog between Vashishth and Ram it is told-

Ram said – “ ….”

In it  Ramji has desired to be like Jina ; hence The supremacy of Jinadeva compared to Ramji and his  ancient nature was revealed.

In ‘Dakshinamurty Sahasra Naam’ it is said –

Shiva said – “……”

Here the name of Bhagwat was told to be ‘engaged in Jain path’ and told to be ‘ Jain’ ; hence it reveals the ancient nature of Jain path and its primacy.

In Vaishampayan Sahasra naam’ it is said-  “  ……”

Here the name of Bhagwan was told as ‘Jineshwara’ hence Jineshwara is Bhagwan. 

In the “Mahimni strotra” authored by Durvasa Rishi it is said-  “ …..”

Here ‘ You are Arahant’ – with such words the stuti of Bhagwant is performed; hence the Bhagwant nature of Arahant is revealed.

In ‘Hanumannatak’ it is said- “ ….”

Here in six faiths one Ishwara is told, there too in Arahant Deva the Ishwara nature is revealed.

Here someone says- just as in several faiths one Ishwara is accepted, in the same way you also accept.

To him is it told- This is told by you , not us; hence in your faith the Ishwara nature of Arahant is established. If the same is also told in our faith also, then we too would accept Shiva etc. as Ishwara.

Just as- some businessman shows real jewels and some shows false jewels; there the one with false jewels tells the rate of all jewels to be equal  but how can the one with real jewels accept that? In the same way Jaini describes real Deva etc. , the other followers describe false Devas; there the other faith follower for his own glory tells all of them to be equal, but how can Jaini accept it?

In “Bhavani SahasraNaam’ of ‘Rudrayaamalatantra’ it is said- “….”

Here the name of Bhavani is said to be ‘Jineshwari’ etc.; thus ‘ the supremacy of ‘ Jin’ was revealed.

In ‘Ganesh Purana’ it is said – “….”

In ‘Vyaskrita sutra’ it is said – “ …..”

….etc. in their shstras ‘ Jain narration’ is there; hence the ancient nature of Jain faith is revealed.

In the fifth skandh of ‘Bhagwat’ there is description of ‘Rishabh Avatar’ ; there he is told to be compassionate, devoid of thirst etc. , having dhyan posture, worshipped by all ashramas (groups); in accordance with them ’the Arahant Raja manifested’ – this is told; hence just as in accordance with incarnations of Ram-Krishna etc. the other faiths are there; in the same way in accordance with incarnation of Rishabh  the ‘Jain faith’ exists. In this way with your faith itself the Jain faith was established.

Here this too should  be considered that in accordance with incarnation of Krishna etc, the propagation of sensory subjects-passions etc. occurs; in accordance with Rishabh incarnation the propagation of Veetrag equanimity occurs. By accepting both tendencies as same there is no difference between dharma-adharma and by accepting difference, the one which is appropriate,  that should be followed.

In ‘Dashavatara charitra’ the form of Buddhavatara is told to be like that of Arahant Deva; if such form is venerable then simply Arahant Deva is venerable.

In “Kashi Khand’ by addressing Devadas King, the kingdom was renounced; there Narayan became Vinaya Kirti Yati; Lakshmi was made to be VinayShri Aryika ; Garud was made as Shravak – such narration is there; hence where addressal was done, there Jain attire was given; therefore Jain appear to be benedictory and ancient.

In ‘Prabhas Purana’ it is said – “…..”

Here ‘Vaman’ is said to have darshan of ‘Padmasan Digamber Neminath’ ; the same is called as ‘Shiva’ and with his darshan etc. the benefit of crores of Yagya is attained- such form of Neminath is accepted by Jaini directly ; hence it is Praman.

In the same ‘Prabhas Purana’ it is also said –  “ ….”

Here Neminath is called by ‘Jina’ name; his place is called as Ashram of Rishi and cause of salvation and the place of Yuga etc. are also said to be same; hence they are greatly venerable.

In Bhavavatar Rahasya of ‘Nagar Purana’ it is said- “….”

Here “Arham” – such state is called as ‘Param Tattva’ , with its knowledge the attainment of supreme gati is told; hence ‘Arham’ state is the same as that of Jain faith.

In ‘Nagar Purana’ it is said- “….”

Here in Krita Yuga the benefit of feeding ten Brahmans is told to be equal to the benefit of feeding Arahant disciple Muni in Kali Yuga; hence jain muni is supreme.

In ‘Manu Smriti’ it is told- “…..”

Here VimalVahan etc. Manu are told, there the same names are told as that of Jain Kulkaras and here first Jina was said to be director of path in the beginning of Yuga and venerated by Sura-Asura – this is the same way which is there in Jain faith in beginning of Yuga hence why it cannot be called as Praman form?

In RigVeda it is told – “ …..”

In YajurVeda it is told - “ ….” , “…….” etc.

-          Here the poojan etc. of Jain Tirthanakaras is carried out hence this too is apparent that after them only,  the Vedas have been created.

In the same way with the attestations of granths of other faiths also, the supremacy of Jina Faith and its ancient nature is established and upon observation of Jina faith , those faiths appear to be imaginary only ; hence those who are interested in benefit for self , they should abandon partiality and accept the true Jain faith.

In other faiths the contradiction between earlier-later is apparent- In  the first incarnation the redemption of Vedas was carried out, there the Himsa in Yagya etc. was supported and in Buddha incarnation , criticising Yagya the himsa was negated. In Vrishabh incarnation the path of Veetrag Samyam was shown and in Krishna incarnation the enjoyment with other women etc. form path of  sensual pleasures and Kashaya was shown.

Now , who should the worldly people follow? In accordance with whom they should practice? – They tell all the incarnations to be same but some tell one way and then other way and practice that way; then how can we have faith in their telling and practicing?

Somewhere they negate the anger etc. kashayas and sensory subjects and somewhere they preach for fighting and enjoyment of sensory subjects. They call it as destiny but without generation of anger etc. , if the fighting etc. activities happen then it can be accepted, but it does not happen that way. And with fighting etc. activities if the anger etc. are not generated then which different anger etc. are there which have been negated; hence this is not acceptable, there is contradiction between earlier and later.

In Gita by showing Veetragta the preachment of war is given, this is directly contradictory. And ‘Rishishwara etc.  gave ‘curse’ – how such anger  is not deplorable? Etc.

And it is told that without son the gati is not attained, where as in ‘Bharat’ it is said that Kumar Bramhacharis went to heaven – this is directly contradictory.

In Rishishwara ‘Bharat’ it is said – “ ….”

Here the wine-meat etc., food in the night and specially night food in four month period ( rainy season) and partaking of roots are negated.

On the other hand their great people are said to be enjoyer of wine-meat etc. Contradictory statement of eating at night during Vrita etc. and eating of roots etc. are made.

In the same way different contradictory statements are made in the shastras of other faiths; hence what to do? Somewhere, knowing them to be earlier tradition, for giving confidence, they are called as real and somewhere for propagating sensory subjects and Kashaya they are called as unreal; hence where the contradiction between past and present statements is there, how can they be Praman?

In other faiths, the words supporting forgiveness, sheel, satisfaction etc. are found in Jain faith also and the contrary words are their imaginations. There by accepting the words in accordance with Jina faith, the wrongs words also get believed.

Hence by seeing some part in other faith as good, one should not have shraddhan there. Just as poison mixed food is not safe, know thus.

And if some  part of good dharma is not found in Jina faith and it is found elsewhere or, if some part of unacceptable adharma is found in Jina faith and it is not found elsewhere then have respect for other faith, but this has never happened since in the knowledge of omniscient nothing is hidden. Therefore discarding the shraddhan of other faiths, have strong shraddhan of Jina Faith.

Continued…..

MokshaMargPrakashak …13

 

Consideration of Tattvas described by other faiths

Now on account of its scholarly value, with imaginary arguments several faiths have been established, in them  the tattvas which are accepted, these are described-

Samkhya Faith

In Samkhya faith 25 tattvas are accepted. Sattva-Raja- Tama – these three are qualities. By means of Sattva happiness is accrued. With ‘Raja’ the fickleness of mind occurs; with ‘Tama’ folly occurs, these are its characteristics.

The name of the state in this form is called ‘Prakriti’ and with that ‘Buddhi’ is generated, the same is named ‘Mahatattva’; by which ‘Ahankar’ is produced, which has sixteen ‘Matras’ ; there five are ‘Gyan-senses’ – touch, taste,  smell, eyes, ears and one mind is there. Five are karma-senses – speech, feet, hand, ling and rectum. Five Tanmatras are there- shape, taste, smell, touch,  sound. There the fire is generated by shape, water from taste, earth from smell, wind from touch and sky from sound.

-          Thus twenty four tattvas are Prakriti form ; different from them  Nirguna doer-enjoyer is one “Purush’.

In this way twenty five Tattvas are told but these are imaginary,  since Rajas etc. qualities cannot be there without recourse. Their recourse can only be Chetan dravya. They say ‘ from these Buddhi was produced’  but Buddhi is the name of gyan which is seen in substances having quality of gyan only. Hence how can they  be source of gyan? Someone says- Buddhi is different, gyan is different? Then mind was earlier told in sixteen Matras and Gyan is said to be different  then whose name would be Buddhi? And it is said that Ahankar occurred with that, there ‘ I do other thing’ – such belief is called Ahankar but with visible knowledge Ahankar does not occur then how can it be called as generated from gyan?

Sixteen Matras are described from Ahankar of them five are called Gyan-senses, in them the shape of eyes etc. form of body are ‘Dravya Indriyas’ which are seen insentient like earth etc. And the Bhavendriyas are of the form of knowledge of shape etc. They are gyan form ; what is the purpose of Ahankar? Has anyone been seen having Ahankar without Buddhi? Then how generation by means of Ahankar is possible? And mind is like senses only since dravya-mind is body form and Bhava mind is gyan form.

Five karma-senses are described but these being parts of body, are corporeal. How can these be generated from non corporeal Ahankar ? And karma-senses are not merely five; all the parts of body are involved. And the description is dependent upon all jivas, not merely dependent upon manushya  alone. Hence trunk, tail etc. form parts are also karma-senses, how can the number be just five?

Touch etc. five Tanmatras are told , but shape etc. are not different substance, these are gunas pervaded with paramanus; how can they be generated differently? And Ahankar is manifestation of non corporeal jiva; hence how can these corporeal qualities be accepted as produced by them?

With these five (Tanmatras) fire etc. are said to have been produced, that is visibly untrue. Shape etc. and fire etc. have coexistent relationship of guna-guni, the statement only  is different; but there is no difference in substance. No way they appear to be different, the difference is generated by statement only; hence how can fire etc. be produced from shape etc. ? Further in statement also ‘the gunas are there in Guni’; how can guni be produced from guna?

Different from these Prakriti   etc. 24 Tattvas , one ‘Purush’ is told but his form is told to be indescribable and do not answer so do they not understand it? – how is he? Where is he? How he is creator-destroyer? Tell. Whatever you say, in that upon consideration the contradiction would be seen.

-          Thus know the imaginary Tattvas of Samkhya faith to be Mithya.

There, knowing the Purush as different from Prakriti is called as Moksha Marga. Firstly there is no Prakriti or Purush and merely by knowing something the objective cannot be achieved; by knowing with elimination of ragas etc. something can be  attained, just by knowing alone the ragas do not reduce.

If he believes it to be act of Prakriti and self is non-doer then how would he eliminate the ragas etc. Hence this is not Moksha Marga.

There the separation of Purush-Prakriti is called as Moksha. In 25 Tattvas 24 are related to Prakriti; one Purush is different; hence they are different only and some Jiva substance is not told in 25 tattvas. There Purush only in conjunction with Prakriti is called as ‘Jiva’. Then Purush are different along with Prakriti, later by some means some purush become free of Prakriti – this is proved , single purush was not there.

There it is fault of Prakriti, Purush or something  different like Vyantara , which is associated with Jiva? If it is his fault then how can the Senses etc. and touch etc. tattvas be accepted as generated from Prakriti ? And if they are different then that too is self established substance; all deeds are his ; nothing of Purush then why sermons are given?

-          Accepting Moksha thus is Mithya.

There direct, inference, agam – these three Pramans are told but the decision of their truth-untruth can be known from Jain scriptures of Nyaya.

In this Samkhya faith several do not accept Ishwara; several believe one purush as Ishwara; several accept Shiva or Narayan as Deva; the imagination  is as per own desire; nothing is certain. And in this faith several adopt tresses , several keep choti, several are shaven ; several wear brown clothes , in different garbs with recourse to tattva gyan they are called as Mahant.

-          In this way Samkhya faith was narrated

Shiva Faith

In Shiva faith there are two divisions- Naiyayik and Vaisheshik

Naiyayik Faith

In Naiyayik faith there are sixteen tattvas – Praman, Prameya, Sanshay, Prayojan, Drishtant, Siddhant, Avayava, Tark, Nirnaya, Vaad, Jalp, Vitanda, Hetvabhas,  cchal,  Jati and Vigrahsthan.

Praman is described of four kinds- Pratyaksha, Anumaan, Shabda and upama. Atma, Deha, Arth, Buddhi etc. are called as Prameya; ‘ what is this?’ – this is called Sanshay; for whom the deed is carried out , that is Prayojan. Which is accepted by both Vadi-prativadi, that is Drishtanta; the one which is established with  Drishtanta is Siddhant. Anumaan has five parts Pratigya etc. which are Avayava; upon  elimination of Sanshaya the thought by which decision is arrived is Tark; later realisation form knowing is Nirnaya; the practice between acharya-shishya by taking two sides is Vad; the flaw of cchal, jati etc. in the desire of knowing is Jalpa; Vad without opposition is Vitanda; which are not real means – such arguments having Asiddha etc divisions are Hetvabhas; words with deception are cchal; which are not real flaw- such apparent dooshan is Jati  and by which means the Prativadi is overcome , that is Nigrah Sthan.

In this way Sanshaya etc. tattvas are described but these are not Tattvas having nature of substance. For deciding of Gyan and for showing scholar-ness with arguments these Tattvas are told but what purpose do they serve? Being perturbation free  after elimination of desire-anger etc. bhavas , that is the act- such objective has not been shown here. Different logics are put up for showing Pandit-hood but all these are for showing cleverness; hence they are not real Tattvas.

You will say- without knowing these, the decision of Tattvas which are objective form cannot  be taken; hence these Tattvas are described. But such tradition is followed by teacher of Grammer also that with learning Grammer the meaning gets decided and those in charge of food etc. also say that by taking food, with strength of body, one gets to be capable of deciding the Tattva; hence such logic is not applicable.

If you say – Grammer, food etc. surely are not means for Tattva Gyan but are means for attaining  worldly objective only. So just as these are there, in the same way the Tattva described by you are means for attaining worldly objectives only. Just as knowledge with senses is called as Pratyaksh etc. Praman and in sthanu-purush etc. the sanshay etc have been described; hence by knowing which the desire-anger etc. are surely eliminated; those tattvas only are meaningful.

If you say- In Prameya  Tattva the decision of Atma is taken hence it is meaningful?

Then we say- Everything is Prameya only; what is not subject of Pramiti – there is no such substance ; hence why Prameya has been called Tattva? Atma etc.  should have been called as Tattva.

There the form of Atma etc. is also narrated conversely- this can be realised by considering impartially. For ex.- Atma has two divisions – Paramatma and Jivatma . There Paramatma is called as Karta of all. There such inference is applied- this world is produced by Karta since this is a deed; the deed is carried out by a karta; just as pot etc. but this is Anumanabhas ( apparent inference) since such Anuman is also possible- this entire world , is not created by Karta since it has non-karya form substances also. The Akarya are not produced by Karta ; for ex. sun image etc. In the world comprising of gathering of several substances, some things are artificial ; they are created by manushya etc and some are non-artificial , hence they do not have karta; this is visible with Pratyaksh etc. praman; hence believing Ishwara as karta is Mithya.

And Jivatma is called different with every body , which is true but even after salvation it is right to accept them differently. This has been told earlier also.

-          Thus different Tattvas are narrated wrongly . The form of Praman  etc. is also imagined wrongly , this can be seen  by examining the Jain Granths.

In this way the described Tattva in Naiyayik faith should be known as imaginary.

Vaisheshik Faith

In vaisheshik faith six tattvas have been told- Dravya, Guna, Karma, Samanya, Vishesh and Samavaya.

There they say- Dravya are of nine types- Earth, water, fire, wind, sky, kaal, direction, soul and mind. Of these the paramanus of earth, water, fire and wind  are different, they are Nitya ; with them the deed form earth etc. are produced, which  are  Anitya but telling thus is contrary to Pratyaksh etc. – Fuel form paramanus of earth are seen to take fire form; paramanus of fire are seen  to take ash form earth form; the paramanus of water are seen to take the pearl form earth form.

If you say- those paramanus vanish and instead different paramanus take that form.

-          Thus Pratyaksh is told to be untrue; if some strong argument is told then we can accept, but by saying thus alone it does not establish it. Hence all paramanus have one pudgala form corporeal family, which  takes earth etc. states in manifestation.

And these earth etc. are told to be having different body.

That is Mithya only, since it does not have any Praman and earth etc. are mass of Paramanus only ; ‘their body different and , this is different’ – this is not feasible; hence it is mithya. 

Where the substances do not get blocked- such blank space is called “Akash”; moment, time etc. are called “Kaal”- thus both of these are non substance ; these are not sovereignty form substance. For consideration of area-manifestation etc. earlier and later, these are imagined and ‘direction’ is nothing at all; by means of imagination of segments of sky , the direction is presumed.

There soul is described in two ways, these are narrated earlier only.

And ‘mind’ is not separate substance. Bhava mind is gyan form , that is nature of  soul; dravya mind is mass of paramanus , that is part of body- thus these ‘dravya’ should be known as imaginary.

There they tell 24 Gunas- sparsh, ras, gandh, varna, Shabda, Samkhya, vibhag, sanyog, parimaan, prithktva, paratva, aparatva, buddhi, sukh, dukh, iccha, dharma, adharma, prayatna, Sanskar, dwesh, sneh, gurutva and dravyatva.

Of these the ‘sparsh etc gunas’ are found in paramanus but calling Earth as fragrant only , water as cold   touch form etc. is Mithya since in some earth the primacy of smell is  not seen ; some water is seen hot, thus it is contrary to Pratyaksh etc.

‘Shabda’ is called guna of sky, this is Mithya since Shabda is blocked by wall etc. ; hence it is corporeal  and sky is non corporeal all pervasive. Sky exists in wall and the Shabda guna cannot enter it – how will this be possible?

‘Samkhya etc.’ are there, they do not exist in substance ; with respect to other substance the less or more of another substance is compared by means of Samkhya etc. in the gyan.

‘Buddhi’ etc. are there, these are manifestation of soul; there buddhi is name of gyan which is guna of soul only. If the name of mind is [buddhi] then mind was told to be in dravyas , why it was told as guna here? And Sukh etc. are there which are possibly found in soul ; these gunas are not characteristics of soul; being non pervasive, they are apparent characteristics.

‘Sneh’ etc. are found in pudgala paramanu since snigdh- guru etc. are known by sparshan senses ; hence they are inclusive in sparsh guna, why should they be told separately?

‘Dravyatva guna’ was told in water- in this way fire etc. are said to have nature of going upwards etc; hence either all should have been told or they should be included in samanya- thus gunas are described which are also imaginary.

‘Five types of karmas’ are told- Utkshepan, Avakshepan,  Aakunchan, Prasaran and Gaman. These are only activities of body , what is the purpose of describing separately? And activities are not just these many; they are many more. And these are named as’Tattva’ separately; hence if they were different substances then they should have been called separate tattva or if these are meaningful for elimination of desire-anger etc. then they should have been called Tattva, but here it is none of these two. If just like that they have to be told then stones etc. also have several states, keep telling them, no purpose is served.

‘Samanya’ has two types- ‘Par’ and ‘Apar’. There ‘Par’ is sovereignty form ; ‘Apar’ is dravyatva etc. form. Which have activity in Nitya Dravya , they are ‘Vishesh’. The name of ‘Ayut Siddha Sambandh’ is ‘Samavaya’. These Samanya etc. for many are of one types (i.e. Samanya) and by means of imagination of divisions (i.e. Vishesh) and by imagination of sambandh (i.e. samavaya) with respect of divisions , in our own thoughts; there is no different substance. And by their knowledge , elimination of desire-anger etc. form objective are not served; hence why they are called as ‘Tattva’?

If such tattvas only were to be described then the thing has prameyatva etc. infinite dharmas  and relation, support etc. different types of predicates are possible in a thing ; hence either all should have been told or important ones having such purpose should have been told ; therefore these ‘samanya etc. tattvas’ have been narrated unnecessarily.

-          Thus Vaisheshik described Tattva , should be known to be imaginary.

Further Vaisheshik have two Praman only- Pratyaksh and Anumaan. The decision of their truth – untruth should be known from Jain Nyaya scriptures.

Naiyayik say that subject, senses, buddhi, body, sukh-dukh – the state of soul without them is salvation and vaisheshiks say – in the 24 gunas the absence of buddhi etc, nine gunas is salvation . Here ‘absence of buddhi’ is told , but buddhi is name of gyan  and gyan is characteristics of soul, hence with absence of gyan , the characteristics is also absent hence the target also would be absent , therefore how will soul  be present?

If buddhi is name of ‘mind’ then bhava mind is gyan form only and dravya mind is body form. Upon salvation dravya mind is separated only hence the name of corporeal dravya mind cannot be ‘buddhi’ ? And like wise senses should be known.

And “absence of subject “ occurs; there the knowledge of sparsh etc. subjects is eliminated then what shall be gyan? If the subjects are eliminated then lok would also be absent.

And ‘absence of sukh’ is said , but efforts are made for sukh only, if that is absent then how will it be venerable? And if the restlessness form senses generated sukh is absent then it is true since sukh beyond senses having characteristics being free of perturbation  are fully possible there; hence there is no absence of sukh.

And there body, dukh , dwesha etc. are also said to be absent, which is true only.

In this way in shiva faith the karta  Nirguna ‘Ishwara’ is ‘Shiva’ only, who is believed to be ‘Deva’ but the difference of his form should be known as described above. And here Bhasma, Kopin, Jata, Janeu etc. used in attire, they have four types from respect of conduct etc. – Shaiva, Pashupat, MahaVrati and Kaal Mukh; but these are having raga ; hence they are not SuLing.

In this way the Shiva Faith was described.

Mimamsak Faith

Now form of Mimamsak faith is described-

Mimamsak are of two types- BramhVadi ( Uttar Mimamsa) and KarmaVadi ( Poorva Mimamsa)

There as per BramhVadi ‘ all are Bramh; ‘there is no one else’- thus Adwait Bramh is described in Vedant  and ‘merging in soul’ is called ‘Mukti’ (salvation).

-          Their Mithya nature has been shown earlier, consider it from there.

And ‘KarmaVadi ‘ preach the activities of Kriya, conduct ,  Yagya etc. deeds but in these Kriyas the presence of raga etc. is seen ; hence these deeds are not effective at all.

There ‘Bhatt’ and ‘Prabhakar’ described two streams are present- there Bhaatt ( followers of Bhatt) believe in six Pramans – Pratyaksh, Anumaan, Veda, Upama, Arthapatti and Abhava.

And Prabhakar ( followers of Prabhakar) accept five Praman only without Abhava but their true and untrue nature should be known from Jain scriptures.

There along with shatkarma, holder of Bramha Sutra, renouncer of cereal etc. of Shudra whose name is ‘Grahastha Ashram’ – such are ‘Bhatt’. And in Vedant along with Yagyopaveet, acceptor of cereal etc. of Vipra, whose name is ‘Bhagwat’ , which are of four types- Kutichar, Bahoodak, Hamsa, Param Hamsa; although they are satisfied with some renunciation even then  the Mithya form of Gyan-Shraddhan and presence of ragas etc., is seen with them; hence these attires are of no use.

Jaiminiya Faith

The Jaiminiya faith is described this way- There is no omniscient; the words of Veda are Nitya, with them true decision is taken. Hence firstly with Veda recital engage in activities, which they call as Prerana(inspiration). That only is the characteristics- such dharma is practiced. For example- those desirous of swarga worship fire etc.

Here we ask them- Shaiva, Samkhya, Naiyayik etc. all accept Veda, you also accept it, but in the description of Tattvas by yourself and them mutual contradiction is seen , what is the reason for same? If in Veda only somewhere something and elsewhere other thing is narrated  then how can it be Pramanik? If the followers only narrate  somewhere something and elsewhere other thing then you should argue amongst yourselves and arrive at a decision and accept one Veda and discard the other Veda.

Therefore we feel this – In Veda itself there is narration which is contradictory in earlier and later places; hence followers of different faiths have derived their meanings differently as per their desire but how can such Veda be accepted as Praman? By worshiping fire swarga is attained , then how can we accept fire as superior to Manushya? Visibly it is contradictory and how can it give swarga?

-          In the same way other statements of Veda are opposite to Praman and in Veda Bramh has been told, why is he not accepted as omniscient? In these ways the Jaiminiya faith should be known to be imaginary. 

Bauddha Faith

Now Bauddha Faith is narrated-

In Bauddha faith four ‘Arya Truths’ have been narrated- Dukh, Ayatan, Samudaya and Marga. There the worldly state in skandh form is ‘Dukh’ ; which is of five kinds- Vigyan, Vedana, Sangya, Sanskar and Roop. There the knowledge of shape etc. is ‘Vigyan’ . The experience of sukh-dukh is ‘Vedana’. Waking up of the sleeping is ‘Sangya’. The recollection of the studied is ‘Sanskar’. The adaptation of shape is ‘Roop’.

Here Vigyan etc. is called as Dukh which is Mithya.  Dukh is desire-anger etc. ; Gyan is not dukh- this is noticed directly. Someone has less gyan and anger-greed etc are high, he is ‘dukhi’; someone has more gyan, desire-anger etc. are less, he is ‘sukhi’; hence Vigyan etc. are not dukh.

There twelve ‘Ayatan ‘ are told- five senses and their five subjects word etc., one mind and one dharmayatan, but why are they called as ‘Ayatan’? All are said to be momentary then what is their purpose?

And by which the mass of raga etc. is generated- such soul and belonging to soul  is named as ‘Samudaya’. There ego form is ‘soul’ and mine form is  ‘Atmiya’, but by accepting them as momentary , they do not serve any purpose by narrating.

‘There all Sanskar are momentary’- such Vasana is called as ‘Marg’  but several things are directly seen to be stationary with respect to Kaal.

You would say- they do not remain in same state.

This we also accept- the sookshma paryaya is momentary but the thing itself is believed to be destroyed, we do not see it happening, how do we accept that? And in child-old etc. states the presence of one soul is experienced; if it is not one then how do they accept same karta of the deeds carried out earlier and later.

If you say- By means of Sanskar.

Then to whom does the Sanskar belong? – whose they are , that is Nitya or momentary? – if it is Nitya, then why all they are called momentary? If it is momentary then whose basis itself is momentary, how can the tradition of such Sanskar be told? And all are momentary then yourself is also momentary. And you call such Vasana as Marga but the benefit of this Marga is not obtained by you only; then why do you proceed in such  marga? And in your faith why were the meaningless scriptures  created? The preachment is usually given for some benefit by following it – thus this path is Mithya.

There the prevention of gyan-santan-vasana of the form of raga etc. is called as ‘Moksha’. But when it is momentary then why do you call it Moksha? And the prevention of raga etc. is accepted by us also but with elimination of own nature form gyan etc. the self also would be eliminated- then how are the efforts for Moksha  meaningful? And the consideration of good-bad is carried out by gyan only; hence with absence of gyan how can the benefit be accepted by self ?

In Bauddha faith two Praman are accepted- Pratyaksha and Anumaan. The decision of their truth-untruth should be  known from the Jain scriptures. And if these two only are Praman, then their scriptures would be Apraman; then why were they created? Pratyaksha -Anumaan would be done by Jiva by themselves, why did you create shastras?

There Sugat is believed to be Deva, but his form is stated as naked and Vikriya form  which is ironical. And holders of red cloth and kamandal (pot), taking food in morning; etc. Ling  form are Bhikshuka of Bauddha faith but what is the purpose of having attire for momentary? There it establishes imaginary description and attire for attaining greatness.

-          Such Bauddha are of four types- Vaibhashik, Sautrantik, Yogachar and Madhyam.

There Vaibhashik ‘accept thing with gyan’ . Sautrantik  accept ‘pratyaksha what is seen that only exists and nothing beyond it’. In Yogachar ‘ buddhi is with conduct’. The Madhyam accept ‘ gyan without support of substance’ .

All these are own imaginations. Upon consideration there is nothing of essence.

In this way the Bauddha faith was narrated.

Continued…..

MokshaMargPrakashak …12

 

Yog Mimamsa

Here the Moksha marg is described in two ways  by means of Gyan Yog and Bhakti Yog-

Gyan Yog Mimamsa

Now ( as described in other faiths) with Gyan Yog, the form of Moksha Marg is narrated-

Firstly know the adwait all pervasive ParBramh who is called as Gyan, but his false nature has already been told . Considering self as absolutely pure Bramh form and believing desire-anger etc. and body etc. as delusion, is called as gyan but this is delusion only.

“ If self is Shuddha” then  why do you need to make efforts for Moksha? ‘ When self is Shuddha Bramh’ then what is the duty which remains to be done?

Further self are seen to be desirous-angry etc. and the conjunction of body etc.  is seen; hence when they would be absent then it would be ; but how its existence in present can be accepted to be delusion?

Then they say- The efforts for Moksha are also delusion only. Just as rope is rope only, knowing it as snake was delusion; with elimination of delusion it is rope only. In the same way, self is Bramh only, and was believing  self to be impure, that was delusion; with elimination of delusion, he is himself Bramh.

-          Such statement is Mithya. If you are Shuddha and are believing self to be ashuddha then it is delusion  but self is being ashuddha with desire-anger etc. and if he is known to be ashuddha then how is it delusion? Knowing him to be Shuddha would be delusion; hence with false delusion, what is the gain in believing self to be Shuddha Bramh?

There you would say – these desire-anger etc. are dharma of mind, Bramh is different.

The we ask you- Mind is your nature or not? If yes then desire-anger etc. are also yours and if it is not then are you gyan natured or corporeal? If you are gyan natured then you are seen to have knowledge by means of mind and senses. Without them, let someone show  gyan as having a different form, but that is not seen. And mind is gyan natured. There to whom does the gyan belong? Tell,  but no other one is apparent. If you are corporeal then without gyan how do you contemplate of your nature? This is not valid.

Then you say- Bramh is different.

Then  we ask you – that different Bramh is yourself or someone else? If it is yourself then ‘I am Bramh’ – the  gyan believing so is mind form only ; it is not different from mind and belief of oneness is in self only; then the one who is known to be different, in that the oneness is not accepted; hence if Bramh is different from mind then why does the mind form gyan believes oneness in Bramh? If the Bramh is different only  then why do you believe oneness with Bramh? Hence discarding delusion, know that just as touch etc. senses are nature of body, they are corporeal; the knowledge attained with them  is nature of soul; in the same way the mind is also mass of sookshma paramanus , which is part of body; the knowledge attained with them and the bhavas of desire-anger etc are all nature of soul only.

Further more- knowing is own nature; desire-anger etc. are affliction  bhavas, due to them the soul is impure. Upon attainment of kaal, the desire-anger shall be relinquished and in knowing the dependence of mind-senses would be abandoned, then Keval Gyan form soul would be purified.

In the same way the buddhi- ego etc. should also be known since mind and buddhi etc. are same and ego etc. are bhavas of affliction like desire-anger etc. Knowing  them as different from self is delusion. Knowing them as own, efforts should be made to eliminate the bhavas of affliction. Those who cannot eliminate them,  and desiring own greatness, those jivas manifest with promiscuity declaring them to be different ( not own) . Enhancing the bhavas of desire-anger etc. they engage in sensual subjects and deeds of violence etc.

The renunciation of ego is also believed differently by them. All are Param Bramh and there is no ownership anywhere, this is believed to be ‘renunciation of ego’ but this is Mithya since he himself  is somebody or not ? If yes. Then why should oneness not be believed in self? If he is not  then, who accepts all as Bramh? Hence one should not have oneness with body etc. others, not being karta of them is renunciation of ego. Having oneness with self is not a fault.

Believing all to be equal without differentiation is said to be renunciation of raga-dwesha, this too is Mithya since all things are not equal . Some are Chetan and some are achetan; some is one way, some are other way, how can they be treated as equal? Hence not accepting  other substances as favourable-unfavourable is renunciation of raga-dwesha. There is no fault in knowing the substances differently.

In the same way they indulge in false imagination of other bhavas of Moksha Marga form. With such beliefs they indulge in immorality, eat uneatables, do not differentiate the family etc., conduct in lowly activities, thus manifest in converse form.

If someone asks, then they say- this is dharma of body or everything happens in accordance with fate or as per desire of Ishwara, we should not indulge in vikalpa.

Look at the falsehood! Himself engages knowingly, which he calls as dharma of body; himself engages in acts with effort, which he calls as fate and with own desire enjoys , which he calls as desire of Ishwara. Engages in vikalpa and he says – ‘ we should not engage in vikalpa’; he wishes to enjoy sensory subjects and passions under pretext of dharma; hence such false logics are created.

If he does not manifest himself accordingly then we would accept his non-participation. For example- he himself is sitting in dhyan and someone covered him with a cloth , there he has not gained happiness in the least; hence it would be accepted as his non-participation truly. But if he accepts that cloth and starts wearing it and becomes happy by eliminating misery of cold etc. then how can we deny his participation in the matter? – The engagement of immorality, eating of uneatables, etc. activities are not carried out without wilfulness; how can his participation be denied?

Therefore if the desire-anger etc. have been eliminated then the engagement in any activity is not possible and if the desire-anger etc. are seen then one should engage in such a way as to reduce such bhavas and not enhance them with promiscuity.

And  several jivas by practicing control of breath etc., consider self to be gyani. There from Ida, Pingala, Sushmuna form nasal gates the breath is released, there with differences of varna, wind is the earth – such tattvas are imagined; with their Vigyan, with some practices the nimitta gets to be known; hence world is declared to be favourable-unfavourable and self is called as great, but these are worldly activities; these are not Moksha Marga. By  informing favourable-unfavourable to Jivas, what is the achievement by enhancing their raga-dwesha and generating own pride-greed etc.? 

And practices Pranayam etc., withholding the breath, “entered into Samadhi” – he says but just as an acrobat carries out acts by means of hands etc; in the same way here the activity was carried out with breath. Hands and breath – these are parts of body only; by controlling these how soul would be benefited?

Then you would say- By this the vikalpa of mind is eliminated, happiness is generated, he is not under influence of Yama, but all this Mithya. Just as in sleep the activity of Chetana is prevented; in the same way by withholding breath the activities of Chetana are prevented. There the mind has been blocked, the desires have not been eliminated; hence the vikalpa of mind has not been eliminated and without Chetana who experiences the pleasure? Hence it cannot be described as ‘pleasure was generated’. Such practitioners have been seen in these times and kshetra but none is seen to have  become immortal. With application of fire, they also are seen to die; hence it is a false imagination that ‘they are not under influence of Yama’.

 During the practice if some Chetana is there and if he hears some words, he calls it ‘anahad naad’ – but just as by listening to sound of Veena he considers it a pleasure; in the same way by listening to them, the belief of pleasure is unreal- this is merely satisfaction of senses; in reality there is nothing.

Further by withholding and releasing of breath ‘ So-aham’ this word is imagined and it is described as ‘un chanted chant’  but just as in the sound made by  ‘Teetar’ (pheasant) the word ‘you only’ is imagined  but the teetar knowingly does not create this sound ; in the same way the imagination of ‘so aham’ word is there; the breath does not make this word knowingly and merely by chanting-listening  the word there is no benefit; only by absorbing the meaning, the benefit can be attained.

There the meaning of ‘so-aham’ word is that- ‘that is me’. Here firstly this question should be raised that ‘who is he?’ Then it should be decided since by deciding about the substance and by having spirit of oneness with it the ‘so-aham’ word is generated.

There also when self is experienced as self then there is no possibility of saying ‘so-aham’; only for telling others to be of the form of self the ‘so-aham’ word is possible. For example a person, knows self as self then why would he say ‘ that is me’ ? Some other jiva who does not recognise self but knows some  characteristics of self , then   he is told – ‘the one who is such, that is me’ ; in the same way , know here also.

Further, by means of looking at forehead, eye-brows and front of nose, the dhyan of centre of forehead was attained which is considered as real. There with movement of cornea in the eye the corporeal substance was seen, what is the achievement in that? And by such means some knowledge of past-future is attained and  capability of movement on earth-sky etc. is achieved and body becomes healthy etc., then all these are worldly activities; Devas etc. have such shakti by nature only but this does not benefit us; the benefit is by elimination of desires of senses and Kashaya. But these are means for nourishing the sensory desires and Kashaya; hence all these means are absolutely not beneficial ; these cause lot of misery till death etc. and no benefit is attained; hence gyani do not take such trouble unnecessarily; only passionate jivas engage in such activities.

And someone is said to have attained Moksha with lot of difficulty  by means of lots of tapa etc. , and someone else is said to attain Moksha with lot of ease. Uddhava etc. are called param bhakta and were given sermon of tapa while prostitute was said to have attained salvation by speaking name etc. without efforts; there is no logic.

Bhakti Yog Mimamsa

Now the Moksha Marga described using Bhakti Yog  by other faiths is narrated. Its form is said to be having bhakti of two kinds, namely Nirguna- Saguna. –

Nirguna Bhakti – There the bhakti of Adwait ParBramh is Nirguna bhakti; which is carried out this way- ‘ you are shapeless, pure, not describable by mind-speech, limitless, all pervasive, one, nourisher of all, saviour of the lowly, creator-destroyer of all’- with several adjectives their qualities are recited; in them several adjectives are of shapeless etc form which are non-existence form; by accepting them absolutely , absence only is known since without shape etc. how can the  thing be? And several all pervasive adjectives are impossible, which have been shown to be impossible earlier.

Then they say- From aspect of Jiva ‘ I am your servant’ , from aspect of shastra ‘I am your part’, and from aspect of tattva ‘ You only is me’ – all the three are delusions only.

[we ask them]- This doer of bhakti is Chetan or corporeal? If he is Chetan then that Chetana belongs to Bramh or himself ? If it belongs to Bramh then ‘I am your servant’ – such acceptance is only in Chetana; hence Chetana is proved to be nature of Bramh and the nature and its owner have oneness relationship ; the servant and swamy relationship is not acceptable .  Servant and swamy relationship is possible when substances are different. And if this Chetana belongs to him only, then this swamy of chetana is different substance ; then ‘ I am part’ and ‘you only is me’ – all this is proved to be untrue.

And if the one engaged in Bhakti is insentient then it is impossible to have buddhi in insentient – how such buddhi was attained? hence ‘I am servant’ is feasible only when the substances are separate and ‘I am your part’ – this cannot told  at all since ‘you’ and ‘I’ are possible only when they are different but how the part and its owner be different ? Part is not a different substance; the gathering of parts,  that only is owner and ‘ you are me’ – such statement is contradictory ; in one substance  oneness is also believed and differentness is also believed then how is it possible? Hence avoiding delusion, one should decide.

So many just recite the names. The name which is recited, without knowing his nature, how can just recital of name be beneficial ? If you say – the greatness is in the name only then if the name of Ishwara is given to some Papi person, there the invocation of names of both would give same result, how is that agreeable? Hence after deciding the nature, the one who is worthy of bhakti, his bhakti should be carried out – thus the form of Nirguna bhakti was described.

Saguna Bhakti – Where the stuti is carried out by  describing the deeds carried out with desire-anger etc., itis called as Saguna Bhakti.

There in ‘Saguna Bhakti’  the worldly beautification description is carried out of Thakur-Thakurani like that of actor-actress. Own -other’s wives related all vyavahara is narrated pertaining to conjunction-separation.  The stealing of clothes of women taking bath, stealing curds, touching women’s feet, dancing in front of  women, etc. activities which make worldly people ashamed  in doing, those activities are carried out by them; hence these acts can be done with extreme lust only.

They are said to engage in war etc. but those are ‘acts of anger’. For demonstrating their glory such means were adopted but all those are ‘acts of pride’. ‘Several deceptions were done’ but those are ‘acts of deceit’ . Efforts were made for attainment of substances and sensory materials but those are ‘acts of greed’. ‘Intrigues etc. were carried out’ but these are acts of laughter etc. – all these deeds are carried out under influence of anger etc.  only.

In this way after revelation of acts of desire-anger etc. it is said that ‘ we engage in stuti’  but if the acts of desire-anger etc. itself are worthy of stuti then which acts would be deplorable? In the world and in the shastras, the acts which are extremely deplored, describing such acts and engaging in stuti is like  condemning self.

We ask you- If someone does not name anyone and describing such acts if he says that ‘ someone has done these deeds’ , then whether you will call them good or bad? If they are good then Papi are good ; who is bad? If they are bad then anyone doing such deeds is bad only; impartially do justice.

If taking sides you say  - Such description of Thakur is also stuti then why did Thakur engage in  such deeds? – what was established by doing such deplorable deeds?

If you say- For initiating the practice these were done. Then what benefit was accrued to self and others by engaging in other’s wife enjoyment etc. deplorable deeds ? Hence such deeds are not possible to have been done by Thakur. If Thakur has not done these deeds , you only say , then the one who was not guilty was called guilty; hence such description is also criticism ; not stuti.

While doing stuti, the qualities which are described, the manifestations are also in accordance with them and they are considered desirable; hence while describing desire-anger etc. deeds, himself also manifests in desire-anger etc. forms or the desire-anger etc. appear attractive, but such bhavas are not desirable .

If you say- such bhavas are not carried out by bhakta, then without such manifestation, how they were described? Without attraction towards them, how bhakti was done? If these bhavas only are good then why Bramhacharya and forgiveness etc. are called good? These are mutually contradictory.

For Saguna bhakti the idols of Rama-Krishna etc. are decorated/adorned with curves and wife etc. such that upon seeing them desire-anger etc. bhavas would be generated.

The shape of Ling of Mahadeva is created. Look at the fallacy! The thing which is avoided to even name, the world keeps it hidden , that shape is worshipped. Did he not have other parts? But great fallacy is revealed by such acts only.

And for Saguna Bhakti , different types of sensory materials are collected. There it is credited to Thakur but themselves they enjoy it. [self] cook food etc. and ‘Thukur was fed’ – it is  told, then imagining offerings, themselves eat it.

Hence we ask- Firstly does Thakur  suffer from hunger-thirst? If not then how such imagination is feasible? If he was suffering with thirst etc. then Ishwar himself was miserable; how can he eliminate other’s sufferings? And food etc. materials you only  offered to him but blessed food should be given by   Thakur and not made by self ; it cannot be something done by yourselves. Just as someone makes presentation to king and the king gives him prize then it is alright to accept it. But if he gives presentation to king and king does not say anything and himself he says - ’king gave me prize’  - saying so he accepts it then it would be a game. In the same way these acts are not bhakti but some form of comedy.

Then Thakur and yourself are two or one? If two then  you met Thakur  and later Thakur gives gift then only accept it; why do you accept it yourself? If you say that ‘Thakur is idol form only’; hence I only imagine that I did the act of Thakur, then ‘You only are Thakur’ and if they are one only then giving offering and receiving Prasad is untrue. On being one this Vyavahara is not possible ; hence people desirous of food etc.  only imagine such things.

And arranging dance-music etc. for Thakurji; in winter-summer-spring etc. seasons collecting sensory materials for worldly people – these acts are carried out. There the credit is given to Thakur and the nourishment of senses for self is carried;  such arrangements  are carried out by jivas obsessed  in sensory subjects. There the birth-marriage etc. and sleeping-awaking etc. are imagined, such intrigues are carried out like those done of girls in games of dolls etc. All these are shows only; there in no real substance in them. Further, boys enact the form of Thakur and show activities, by which they nourish  their own sensory subjects and say – ‘ this is also bhakti’ , what more can be said ? -All such fallacies are seen in saguna bhakti.

-          Thus the two types of Bhakti told in Moksha Marga are shown to be Mithya. 

In this way the Moksha Marga is narrated conversely.   

Mimamsa of Moksha imagined by other faith

The form of Moksha is also propounded conversely; there Moksha is also described in different ways-

One form of Moksha is thus- In Baikunth Dham Thakur along with Thakurani are enjoying different enjoyments, reaching there and engaging in their service is Moksha- but this is converse.

Firstly the Thakur himself is obsessed with senses like worldly people, thus the Thakur also is like kings etc. And if services of others is required then Thakur is also dependent. And after attainment of Moksha , if he does service only like that of king , then this too is service only; how can there be happiness by being dependent? Hence this is not acceptable.

Another form of Moksha is this- Himself becomes like Ishwara- this too is Mithya. If he is like him and all are different then there are several Ishwara, then who shall be creator-destroyer of the Lok? If all are possible then with different desires, there would be mutual opposition. And if it is one only then all are not equal. If he is lower then being lesser, there would be restlessness for being higher, then how can he be happy? Just as ‘ small king- big king’, happens in world; in the same way the ‘small-big Ishwara’ would be there in salvation, but this is not acceptable.

One Moksha is described thus- In Baikunth there is flame like that of lamp, there the flame merges with flame, but this is also Mithya. The flame of lamp is corporeal insentient – how can such flame be feasible there? And by merging of flame with flame, this flame remains or gets destroyed? If it remains then the flame keeps enhancing , then flame would be less and more and if it gets destroyed then how can the destruction of own sovereignty be accepted as venerable ? Hence this too is not acceptable.

One Moksha is described thus- Atma is Bramh only. Upon removal of obscuration of Maya , he is salvation form only, but this too is Mithya. When he was associated with obscuration of Maya,  then he was one with Bramh or different? If he was one then Bramh only is Maya form and if he was different then with removal of Maya he merges with Bramh, then his sovereignty remains or not? If it remains then the omniscient would feel his existence separately, then they should be described as merged in conjunction , but not in reality. And if existence does not remain then who would like to accept  own non existence? Hence this too is not acceptable.

Several describe Moksha in this form also- With destruction of Buddhi etc. Moksha is attained, then  it means that the gyan dependent upon the mind and senses of the body did not remain; such thing can be said with destruction of desire-anger etc. but if the absence of Chetana also is accepted then how can the insentient state like stone be accepted? By  doing good own knowledge enhances , then by doing very good how can absence of knowledge be accepted? And in Lok the Gyan is important , the insentient state does not have any greatness; hence this too is not acceptable.  

In this way with different imagination Moksha is described,  there nothing is known really, in worldly state imagining salvation they babble  as desired.

In this way in Vedant etc. faiths the narration is otherwise.

Consideration of Muslim Faith

In the same way in faith of Musalmans different narration is there- just as Vedant believe the Bramh to be creator-destroyer of all beings, all pervasive, one, pure; in the same way they believe ‘Khuda’  to be so.

Just as they believe in ‘incarnation’ ; in the same way they believe in ‘Paigamber’.

Just as – they believe in accounting of Pap-punya and suitable punishment etc. ; in the same way they believe ‘Khuda’ does.

Just as – they call cow etc. to be venerable ; in the same way they call pig etc. to be; all are tiryanch etc.

Just as- they call salvation  by means of ‘bhakti of Ishwara’ ; in the same way they tell with ‘bhakti of Khuda’.

Just as – they nourish compassion somewhere and nourish himsa somewhere ; in the same way they nourish ‘meher (compassion)’  and ‘katla ( killing)’ in some places.

Just as – they nourish ‘tapa’ somewhere and  sensory subjects somewhere else; in the same way they also do.

Just as – they prohibit the meat-liquor- hunting etc. ; somewhere great people are indulging in them also; in the same way they also declare  its prohibition and acceptance.

-          In this way the similarity is seen in different ways.

Although names are different but the similarity of intended meaning is seen. Ishwara, Khuda etc. have similarity in primary belief, but in secondary belief there are lots of differences ; there  they narrate conversely, are promoter of sensory subjects-kashaya, himsa etc. form pap which are opposite to direct Praman etc. ; hence the faith of Musalmaan should be known to be highly contrary form.

-          In this way in this kshetra-kaal , the faiths which are highly practiced; their Mithya form was narrated.

There someone may say- if these faiths are Mithya, then why eminent kings etc. and highly scholar people have practiced these faiths? 

Its answer- The Jivas are having Mithya passions since beginningless times. In these faiths Mithyatva only is promoted  and Jivas are desirous of sensory subjects-kashaya form activities; hence in these sensory subjects -kashaya form activities only are promoted. There the kings and scholar’s objective of sensory subjects and Kashaya is served by such dharma. The jivas, in spite of knowing these acts as pap, are desirous of engaging  in them crossing the limits of worldly criticism, and when these acts are described as dharma , then who would  not be engaged in such dharma? Hence the support for these dharmas is specifically there.

Probably you may say- in these dharmas the detachments, compassion also are told?

[Its answer]- Just as false coin does not get accepted without fake similarity; in the same way without mixing some truth the lies cannot be promoted. But all have promoted sensory subjects - kashaya only for  their own benefit. Just as in Geeta by giving sermon the objective was to engage in war ; in Vedant with description of Shuddha , the objective of promiscuity is promoted- know the same elsewhere.

And this Kaal is worst; hence in this the engagement in worst dharma is even more.

Look! In this Kaal Musalmaan have become more, Hindus have reduced; in Hindus also, the others have increased, the Jains have reduced; therefore this is fault of kaal.

-          Thus in this kshetra, in this kaal , ‘the tendency of Mithya Dharma’ is high.

Continued….