He further says that
only those Shastras should be studied in which the spiritual discourse is
found. Nothing is achieved by study of other Shastras.
Our answer to him is
-"If you have attained the right vision (right belief) than all Jain-Shastras
are useful. There also, chiefly in the spiritual Shastras, the nature of the
soul is mainly discussed. But on evolution of right belief, the true nature
of the soul has been ascertained. Thereafter, for the sake of purity of
knowledge and for keeping the Upayoga engrossed in pious acts (of feeble-
passion), study of other Shastras also; but you should not have ascertained
the nature of the soul then for maintaining it you should study the spiritual
Shastras also; but you should not have disliking for other Shastras. One who
has disliking of other Shastras does not possess true liking for the soul.
For example, one who is a sensualist, he listens to the stories of sensual
pleasures and believes to be useful all those means which are instrumental in
sensual pleasures. Similarly, he who has developed liking for the soul, should
also know the mythology of the Tirthankaras, etc., personages who have
realized the soul, and for knowing the various details about the soul, he
should know the Guna-Sthanas (stages of spiritual development), etc., also.
Further, he should believe vows, etc. which are the means of soul's pure
conduct to be useful and should also understand well the distinct nature of
the soul. Therefore, all the four Anuyogas (branches of scriptures) are
useful.
Further, for the sake
of gaining thorough knowledge of them one should also study the books of
etymology and logic. Therefore, it is desirable to study in small or big
measure all relevant Shastras according to one's own capability.
He further argues- "In
Padmanandi Pachchisi* it is stated that the Upayoga which comes out of the
soul ad rambles in the study of Shastras is unchaste".
Answer: "This
statement is true. The Upayoga is of the soul; if it becomes enamored of the
other non-self substance, i.e., Shastras by leaving the self-soul then it is
assuredly unchaste. However, if a woman maintains her chastity, it is
praiseworthy and if she is not able to remain chaste then leaving a noble
person if she develops sexual relationships with a low caste person then she
is extremely censurable, similarly, if the Upayoga remains engrossed in the
self-soul then it is praise-worthy and if it does not remains so then leaving
the study of pious Shastras, etc., on-self substances, if it gets engaged in
the inauspicious sensual objects, etc., then it is extremely, censurable. How
could your Upayoga remains engrossed in the self-engrossed in the self-soul
for a long time?
It is, therefore,
desirable to engage one's Upayoga in the study of scripture (Shastras).
And if you consider
deliberating on substances, etc. and Guna-Sthanas etc. to be the Vikalpa
(rambling of mind), it is no doubt Vikalpa but so long as the Upayoga does not
cherish these Vikalpa (free from Vikalpas), till then if one does not cherish
these Vikalpas then other types of Vikalpas will arise which will be full of
excessive attachment, etc. passions. Moreover, the unrambling state of
Upayoga of non- omniscient can remain fixed only for an Antarmuhurta**.
(**Bahyshastgehnai
viharin.ee ya matirbahunikalpdharin.ee
Chitsvroopkulsadyanirgata sa satee na sadrishee kuoshita (38)
And if you say that
you will continue meditating on the nature of self-soul only in different
ways, then our answer is that in ordinary meditation different ways are not
possible and if you wish to meditation from various angles then the
deliberation on the substance, attribute, modification, spiritual stages,
quest places and the pure-impure states, etc., of the self will be invariably
involved.
Further listen! the
path of liberation does not consists in knowing the self-soul only. The
liberation path is attained on evolution of the right belief-knowledge of
seven Tattvas (essential principles) and on eliminating the feeling of
attachment, aversion, etc. passions. Therefore, for knowing the specialties
of seven Tattvas the specialties of soul-non- soul, influx and bondage of
karmas, etc. are to be known inevitably which are instrumental in attaining
right faith and knowledge.
And thereafter you
should make efforts for uprooting the attachment, etc. passion. So, by
forsaking those causes which are instrumental in increasing the feeling of
attachment, etc. you should engage your Upayoga in the causes which are
instrumental in reducing the attachment, etc. Deliberating on substances, etc.
and Guna-sthana etc. are the causes of reducing the attachment, etc. None of
these is instrumental cause of attachment, etc. Hence, even after becoming a
true believer you should concentrate your Upayoga in their deliberation only.
Further, he agrees
that Upayoga should be engaged in those causes which are instrumental in
uprooting the feelings of attachment, etc., but questions as to what is the
utility of deliberating on states of existence of all living beings in the
universe and on specialties of karmas like bondage, rise, existence, etc. and
also on the shape, magnitude etc. of the universe?
Answer: By
deliberating on those also the attachment, etc. are not fostered because those
knowables are not agreeable- disagreeable to him; therefore, are not the
causes of attachment, etc. presently. Moreover, by knowing these in detail
the Tattva-jnana (knowledge of Tattvas) becomes clearer, hence, these are
causes only of reducing the attachment, etc. passion in future. Therefore,
deliberation on them is beneficial.
Further, he argues
that knowing of heaven, hell, etc. does cause attachment-aversion feelings?
Answer: Such feelings
do not arise in a true believer but arise in the mind of a deluded person
(misbeliever). By leaving sinful acts, one engages himself in virtuous acts
then the attachment, etc. are assuredly partially reduced.
Question: In Shastras
it is advised that knowing even in a smaller measure the purposeful object is
fruitful; therefore, why should one involve oneself in different Vikalpas?
Answer: Such advise is
given to those Jivas who either know much about other things and do not know
the purposeful things or whose capacity of knowing is limited. But whose
capacity of knowing is more, he is not advised that knowing more would be
harmful. The more, he would know about the aforesaid objects the greater will
be the clarity in his knowledge of purposeful things; for in the Shastras it
is stated thus:
Samanyshastratonoonnisharshaishobalvanbhavait This means that "The
detailed (comprehensive) knowledge of Shastras is more efficacious than their
general knowledge". A detailed (comprehensive) knowledge alone is good for
right ascertainment; therefore, one should know in detail.
Further, he considers
observing of penances as useless torturing of the body. But on the becoming a
true believer of liberation path one's conduct must be just opposite to that
of a mundane being. The mundane beings develop feelings of
attachment-aversion in agreeable-disagreeable objects. But this person (so-
called true believer) should not develop the attachment-aversion feelings.
For giving up the feelings of attachment (Raaga) he, the true believer,
forsakes agreeable things like food, etc. and for freeing himself of the
feelings of aversion (Dwesha), he accepts disagreeable things like fasting,
etc. If such means are adopted independently with self-control then even on
coming across with unwanted agreeable-disagreeable things the attachment-
aversion feelings would not arise This is what should be; but you have malice
towards fasting, etc., that is why you regard it as distressing. If this is
distressing then automatically taking food is regarded as pleasant. This
generates Raaga (attachment). So, such kind of proclivity is already existing
in mundane beings, what did you achieve by becoming a true follower of the
liberation path?
If you argue- "many
true believers also do not observe penance".
Answer: Due to some
particular reason, penance may not be possible but they believe and know the
penance as beneficial and make efforts towards adopting it. But you hold the
belief that observing penance is distressing and further no inclination is
found in you for adopting penance. Therefore, how can you be a true believer?
He further pleads- "In
Shastras it is stated that one may undergo the misery of penance, etc. but
without right knowledge desired object cannot be obtained?
Answer: Such Jivas
who are averse to obtained the knowledge of Tattvas (reality) and believe
Moksha (liberation) achievable by penance only, are admonished that without
the knowledge of Tattvas, merely by observance of penance only, the path of
liberation is not attainable; and on attainment of Tattvas, for uprooting the
attachment, etc., the observance of penance is not prohibited. If it be
prohibited, then why would the Ganadharas (chief monks) undergo penance, etc.
Hence, it is desirable to observe penance according to one's capability.
Further, he believes
observance of vows, etc. to be a bondage; but the unrestrained proclivity was
already there in the state of ignorance; on attainment of knowledge, one
definitely controls his unrestrained tendencies. And for controlling that
tendency one must abandon causes of outward injury, etc.
He further maintains
-"My intentions are pure, how does it matter if outward abstention is not
observed?
Answer: If the acts of
injury, etc. take place on their own without your intentions, then we would
believe what you say. And if you indulge knowingly in some act, how could then
your intentions be called as pure? How can indulgence in sensual pleasures,
etc. and negligent movement, etc. be possible without intentions? But you make
efforts for such acts knowingly and when injury, etc. sins are caused, you do
not pay attention on them but still maintain that my intentions are pure. So,
by such belief, your intentions will remain impure (alienated) only. He
further argues- "Though thoughts may be restrained and indulgence in outward
injury, etc. also be reduced but because taking oath creates bondage;
therefore acceptance of vows by oath is not desirable".
Answer: So long as
the chance of involvement in a particular act remains, till then, the oath of
abstaining from it is not taken. And because of such chance. attachment in
that act persists. Due to existence of this attachment feeling bondage of
relevant karma continues because of non-abstention even without indulgence in
that act. It is, therefore, necessary to take oath. How could the relevant
thoughts be checked without accepting the bondage (oath) of not indulging in
that act? Under the pressure of circumstances, the inner intention of
indulging in it persists. Therefore, it is necessary to take oath.
